(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "International law documents : 1948-49"

U. S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 



International Law 

Documents 
1948-49 



NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 
NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND 



INTERNATIONAL LAW 
DOCUMENTS 



1948-49 

NAVPERS 15031 
Volume XLVI 



* 



UN TED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1950 



THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM 
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON 25, D. C. - - PRICE $1.25 



PREFACE 

The publication of this series of volumes, under 
varying titles, was inaugurated by the Naval War 
College in 1894. This is the forty-sixth volume in 
the series as numbered for index purposes (this num- 
bering does not cover the volumes for 1894, 1895, 
1896, 1897, 1899 and 1900, the additional volume 
published in 1904, or the four index volumes for 1901— 
10, 1901-20, 1904-30, and 1931-40). The immedi- 
ately preceding volume, entitled "International Law 
Documents 1946-1947," was published in 1948. 

As in previous years, the volume has been prepared 
in collaboration with the Associate for International 
Law of the Naval War College — Judge Manley O. 
Hudson, Bemis Professor of International Law in the 
Harvard Law School. 

An effort has been made to include in the volume 
basic materials on problems of international law of 
current interest. As some of these materials are not 
generally accessible, it is hoped that the collection 
will be found to serve a useful purpose both by naval 
officers and by a wider circle of people working in the 
field. 

Acknowledgment is due to the University of Chi- 
cago for the privilege of reproducing translations of 
constitutional provisions from "The Constitutions 
of the Americas," edited by Russell H. Fitzgibbon 
and others (1948). 

D. B. Beary, 

Vice Admiral ', United States Navy, 
President, Naval War College. 

Newport, 1 November 1949. 

in 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. International Organization 

Page 

1. Charter of the Organization of American States, Bogota, 30 April 

1948 1 

2. American Treaty of Pacific Settlement: "Pact of Bogota," Bogota, 

30 April 1948 26 

3. Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Col- 

lective Self-Defense (United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Luxem- 
bourg, and the Netherlands), Brussels, 17 March 1948 46 

4. North Atlantic Defense Treaty, Washington, 4 April 1949 52 

5. Revised General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International 

Disputes, Lake Success, 28 April 1949 56 

6. Statute of the Council of Europe, London, 5 May 1949 57 

II. Trials of War Criminals 

1. International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Indictment No. 1, 

29 April 1946 (excerpts) 71 

2. International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Judgment, 4-12 

November 1948 (excerpts) 76 

3 . Tabulation of the Tokyo Sentences of Individual Defendants 107 

III. Rights Claimed by Littoral States in Adjacent Seas 

1. The Corfu Channel Case (Merits), International Court of Justice, 

Judgment of 9 April 1949 108 

2. United States Laws and Regulations 156 

(a) Harbors Closed to Foreign Vessels 156 

(b) Defensive Sea Areas 157 

(c) Maritime Control Areas 169 

(d) Customs Enforcement Areas 176 

(e) Laws concerning Pollution of Navigable Waters 180 

3 . Claims to the Continental Shelf 182 

(a) United States of America: Presidential Proclamation, 28 
September 1945 183 

(b) United States of America: Executive Order, 28 September 

1945 184 

(c) United Mexican States: Presidential Declaration, 29 
October 1945 185 

(d) Panama: Constitution, 1 March 1946 (excerpt) 186 

(<f) Argentine Republic: Presidential Decree, 11 October 1946. 187 

(/) Chile: Presidential Declaration, 25 June 1947 188 

(g) Peru: Presidential Decree, 1 August 1947 190 

(h) Nicaragua: Political Constitution, 22 January 1948 (ex- 
cerpt) 192 

(i) Costa Rica: Decree Law, 27 July 1948 193 

0") Saudi Arabia: Royal Pronouncement, 28 May 1949 195 

4. Territorial Waters 196 

Saudi Arabia: Royal Decree, 28 May 1949 196 



VI 

IV. Law of the Air 

Page 

1. United States Airspace Reservations 198 

2. Foreign State Aircraft over National Territory 206 

V. Declarations Concerning Antarctic Territories 

1 . Argentine Republic 217 

(a) The Director of Argentine Posts and Telegraphs to the 
Director of the Universal Postal Union, 14 September 1927 218 

(b) Presidential Decree, 30 April 1940 219 

(c) The Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations to the Chilean 
Ambassador, 12 November 1940 220 

(d) The Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations to the British 
Ambassador, 3 June 1946 222 

2. Chile 224 

(a) Presidential Decree, 6 November 1940 224 

(b) The Chilean Ministry of Foreign Relations to the Japanese 

Legation, 29 November 1940 225 

3. Chile and the Argentine Republic 226 

(a) Joint Declaration on the Antarctic, Buenos Aires, 12 July 

1947 226 

(b) Joint Declaration on the Antarctic, Santiago de Chile, 4 
March, 1948 227 

4. French Republic 228 

(a) Presidential Decree, 27 March 1924 228 

(b) Report of the Minister of Colonies, 21 November 1924. . . 228 

(c) Presidential Decree, 21 November 1924 229 

(d) Presidential Decree, 1 April 1938 230 

5. Great Britain: Falkland Islands Dependencies 231 

{a) Letters Patent, 21 July 1908 231 

\b) Letters Patent, 28 March 1917 233 

6. Great Britain: Ross Dependency 234 

Order in Council, 30 July 1923 235 

7. Great Britain: Australian Antarctic Territory 236 

Order in Council, 7 February 1933 236 

8. Great Britain: OtherAntarctic Claims 237 

Summary of Pr ceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1926 

(excerpt) . . . . o 237 

9. Norway: Bouvet Island 238 

Law Concerning Bouvet Island, 27 February 1930 238 

10. Norway: Peter I Island 239 

Royal Proclamation, 1 May 1931 239 

11. Norway: Norwegian Antarctic Territory 239 

{a) Recommendation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 14 

January, 1939 239 

(b) Royal P r oclamation, 14 January 1939 243 

12. United States of America 243 

Department of State Press Release, 28 August 1948 244 



VII 



VI. Provisions Relating to International Law in 

Constitutions Adopted Since 1945 

Page 

1. Constitution of the Argentine Republic, 16 March 1949 246 

2. Constitution of the United States of Brazil, 18 September 1946. . . 247 

3. Constitution of the Union of Burma, 24 September 1947 249 

4. Constitution of the Dominican Republic, 10 January 1947 249 

5. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, 31 December 1946 250 

6. Constitution of the French Republic, 27 October 1946 . 252 

7. German Constitutions 253 

(a) Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, 20 May 

1949 253 

(b) Constitution of the Republic of Bavaria, 1 December 1946 254 

(c) Constitution of the State of Hesse, 1 December 1946 255 

(d) Constitution for Wurttemberg-Baden, 24 November 1946. 255 

8. Constitution of the Republic of Haiti, 23 December 1946 255 

9. Constitution of the Italian Republic, 1 January 1948 256 

10. Constitution of Japan, 3 November 1946 257 

11. Constitution of Nicaragua, 22 January 1948 258 

12. Constitution of the Republic of Panama, 1 March 1946 260 

13. Constitution of the United States of Venezuela, 5 July 1947 261 



I. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 

1. Charter of the Organization of American States, 
Bogota, 30 April 1948 

Note. The International Union of American Republics has existed under 
various names since 1890, but it has had no basic constitutional instrument. It 
has functioned chiefly through the International Conferences of American 
States, held in 1889-90, 1901-2, 1906, 1910, 1923, 1928, 1933, 1938 and 1948, 
and it has maintained a permanent secretariat which since 1910 has been known 
as the Pan American Union. The Convention on the Pan American Union, 
adopted by the Sixth International Conference of American States in 1928 and 
ratified by 16 States, did not enter into force. 

The Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, held at 
Mexico City from 21 February to 8 March 1945, adopted a resolution on the 
reorganization, consolidation and strengthening of the inter-American system, 
and charged the Governing Board of the Pan American Union with preparing 
a draft charter. A draft prepared by a special committee of the Governing 
Board was communicated to the Governments of the American States in 1947 
leading to the adoption of this Cha rter by the Ninth International Conference 
of American States at Bogota on 30 April 1948. 

On 1 July 1949, ratifications of the Charter had been deposited with the Pan 
American Union by Costa Rica and Mexico. 

(Pan American Union Law and Treaty Series, No. 23.) 

In the name of their peoples, the States represented 
at the Ninth International Conference of American 
States, 

Convinced that the historic mission of America is 
to offer to man a land of liberty, and a favorable 
environment for the development of his personality 
and the realization of his just aspirations; 

Conscious that that mission has already inspired 
numerous agreements, whose essential value lies in 
the desire of the American peoples to live together in 
peace, and, through their mutual understanding and 
respect for the sovereignty of each one, to provide for 
the betterment of all, in independence, in equality 
and under law; 

Confident that the true significance of American 
solidarity and good neighborliness can only mean the 
consolidation on this continent, within the framework 

1 



of democratic institutions, of a system of individual 
liberty and social justice based on respect for the 
essential rights of man; 

Persuaded that their welfare and their contribution 
to the progress and the civilization of the world will 
increasingly require intensive continental cooperation; 

Resolved to persevere in the noble undertaking 
that humanity has conferred upon the United Na- 
tions, whose principles and purposes they solemnly 
reaffirm; 

Convinced that juridical organization is a necessary 
condition for security and peace founded on moral 
order and on justice; and 

In accordance with Resolution IX of the Inter- 
American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, 
held at Mexico City, have agreed upon the following 

Charter of the Organization of 
American States 

part one 

Chapter I. Nature and Purposes 

Article 1. The American States establish by this 
Charter the international organization that they have 
developed to achieve an order of peace and justice, to 
promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collabo- 
ration, and to defend their sovereignty, their terri- 
torial integrity and their independence. Within the 
United Nations, the Organization of American States 
is a regional agency. 

Article 2. All American States that ratify the 
present Charter are Members of the Organization. 

Article 3. Any new political entity that arises 
from the union of several Member States and that, as 
such, ratifies the present Charter, shall become a 
Member of the Organization. The entry of the new 



political entity into the Organization shall result in 
the loss of membership of each one of the States which 
constitute it. 

Article 4. The Organization of American States, 
in order to put into practice the principles on which it 
is founded and to fulfill its regional obligations under 
the Charter of the United Nations, proclaims the 
following essential purposes: 

(a) To strengthen the peace and security of the 
continent; 

(b) To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to 
ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may 
arise among the Member States; 

(c) To provide for common action on the part of 
those States in the event of aggression; 

(d) To seek the solution of political, juridical and 
economic problems that may arise among them; and 

(V) To promote, by cooperative action, their econ- 
omic, social and cultural development. 

Chapter II 

Principles 

Article 5. The American States reaffirm the 
following principles: 

(a) International law is the standard of conduct of 
States in their reciprocal relations; 

(b) International order consists essentially of re- 
spect for the personality, sovereignty and independ- 
ence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obliga- 
tions derived from treaties and other sources of 
international law; 

(c) Good faith shall govern the relations between 
States; 

(d) The solidarity of the American States and the 
high aims which are sought through it require the 



political organization of those States on the basis of 
the effective exercise of representative democracy; 

(e) The American States condemn war of aggres- 
sion: victory does not give rights; 

(/") An act of aggression against one American 
State is an act of aggression against all the other 
American States; 

(g) Controversies of an international character 
arising between two or more American States shall 
be settled by peaceful procedures; 

(h) Social justice and social security are bases of 
lasting peace; 

(j) Economic cooperation is essential to the com- 
mon welfare and prosperity of the peoples of the 
continent; 

(7) The American States proclaim the fundamental 
rights of the individual without distinction as to race, 
nationality, creed or sex; 

(k) The spiritual unity of the continent is based on 
respect for the cultural values of the American coun- 
tries and requires their close cooperation for the high 
purposes of civilization; 

(/) The education of peoples should be directed 
toward justice, freedom and peace. 

Chapter III. Fundamental Rights and Duties 

of States 

Article 6. States are juridically equal, enjoy 
equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these 
rights, and have equal duties. The rights of each 
State depend not upon its power to ensure the exer- 
cise thereof, but upon the mere fact of its existence 
as a person under international law. 

Article 7. Every American State has the duty 
to respect the rights enjoyed by every other State 
in accordance with international law. 



Article 8. The fundamental rights of States may 
not be impaired in any manner whatsoever. 

Article 9. The political existence of the State is 
independent of recognition by other States. Even 
before being recognized, the State has the right to 
defend its integrity and independence, to provide for 
its preservation and prosperity, and consequently to 
organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate concerning its 
interests, to administer its services, and to determine 
the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The 
exercise of these rights is limited only by the exercise 
of the rights of other States in accordance with inter- 
national law. 

Article 10. Recognition implies that the State 
granting it accepts the personality of the new State, 
with all the rights and duties that international law 
prescribes for the two States. 

Article 11. The right of each State to protect 
itself and to live its own life does not authorize it to 
commit unjust acts against another State. 

Article 12. The jurisdiction of States within the 
limits of their national territory is exercised equally 
over all the inhabitants, whether nationals or aliens. 

Article 13. Each State has the right to develop 
its cultural, political and economic life freely and 
naturally. In this free development, the State shall 
respect the rights of the individual and the principles 
of universal'morality. 

Article 14. Respect for and the faithful obser- 
vance of treaties constitute standards for the devel- 
opment of peaceful relations among States. Inter- 
national treaties and agreements should be public. 

Article 15. No State or group of States has the 
right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any 
reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs 
of any other State. The foregoing principle pro- 
hibits not only armed force but also any other form 



of interference or attempted threat against the per- 
sonality of the State or against its political, economic 
and cultural elements. 

Article 16. No State may use or encourage the 
use of coercive measures of an economic or political 
character in order to force the sovereign will of 
another State and obtain from it advantages of any 
kind. 

Article 17. The territory of a State is inviolable; 
it may not be the object, even temporarily, of mili- 
tary occupation or of other measures of force taken 
by another State, directly or indirectly, on any 
grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or 
special advantages obtained either by force or by 
other means of coercion shall be recognized. 

Article 18. The American States bind them- 
selves in their international relations not to have 
recourse to the use of force, except in the case of 
self-defense in accordance with existing treaties or in 
fulfillment thereof. 

Article 19. Measures adopted for the main- 
tenance of peace and security in accordance with 
existing treaties do not constitute a violation of the 
principles set forth in Articles 15 and 17. 

Chapter IV. Pacific Settlement of Disputes 

Article 20. All international disputes that may 
arise between American States shall be submitted 
to the peaceful procedures set forth in this Charter, 
before being referred to the Security Council of the 
United Nations. 

Article 21. The following are peaceful pro- 
cedures; direct negotiation, good offices, mediation, 
investigation and conciliation, judicial settlement, 
arbitration, and those which the parties to the dispute 
may especially agree upon at any time. 



Article 22. In the event that a dispute arises 
between two or more American States which, in the 
opinion of one of them, cannot be settled through the 
usual diplomatic channels, the Parties shall agree on 
some other peaceful procedure that will enable them 
to reach a solution. 

Article 23. A special treaty will establish ade- 
quate procedures for the pacific settlement of dis- 
putes and will determine the appropriate means for 
their application, so that no dispute between Ameri- 
can States shall fail of definitive settlement within a 
reasonable period. 

Chapter V. Collective Security 

Article 24. Every act of aggression by a State 
against the territorial integrity or the inviolability 
of the territory or against the sovereignty or political 
independence of an American State shall be con- 
sidered an act of aggression against the other Ameri- 
can States. 

Article 25. If the inviolability or the integrity 
of the territory or the sovereignty or political inde- 
pendence of any American State should be affected 
by an armed attack or by an act of aggression that 
is not an armed attack, or by an extra-continental 
conflict, or by a conflict between two or more Ameri- 
can States, or by any other fact or situation that 
might endanger the peace of America, the American 
States, in furtherance of the principles of continental 
solidarity or collective self-defense, shall apply the 
measures and procedures established in the special 
treaties on the subject. 

Chapter VI. Economic Standards 

Article 26. The Member States agree to co- 
operate with one another, as far as their resources 



8 

may permit and their laws may provide, in the 
broadest spirit of good neighborliness, in order to 
strengthen their economic structure, develop their 
agriculture and mining, promote their industry and 
increase their trade. 

Article 27. If the economy of an American State 
is affected by serious conditions that cannot be 
satisfactorily remedied by its own unaided effort, 
such State may place its economic problems before 
the Inter-American Economic and Social Council 
to seek through consultation the most appropriate 
solution for such problems. 

Chapter VII. Social Standards 

Article 28. The Member States agree to co- 
operate with one another to achieve just and decent 
living conditions for their entire populations. 

Article 29. The Member States agree upon the 
desirability of developing their social legislation on 
the following bases: 

(a) All human beings, without distinction as to 
race, nationality, sex, creed or social condition, have 
the right to attain material well-being and spiritual 
growth under circumstances of liberty, dignity, 
equality of opportunity, and economic security: 

(b) Work is a right and a social duty; it shall not be 
considered as an article of commerce; it demands re- 
spect for freedom of association and for the dignity 
of the worker; and it is to be performed under condi- 
tions that ensure life, health and a decent standard of 
living, both during the working years and during old 
age, or when any circumstance deprives the indi- 
vidual of the possibility of working. 

Chapter VIII. Cultural Standards 

Article 30. The Member States agree to pro- 
mote, in accordance with their constitutional 



provisions and their material resources, the exercise 
of the right to education, on the following bases: 

(a) Elementary education shall be compulsory and, 
when provided by the State, shall be without cost; 

(b) Higher education shall be available to all, with- 
out distinction as to race, nationality, sex, language 
creed or social condition. 

Article 31. With due consideration for the 
national character of each State, the Member States 
shall undertake to facilitate free cultural interchange 
by every medium of expression. 

PART TWO 

Chapter IX. The Organs 

Article 32. The Organization of American States 
accomplishes its purposes by means of: 
{a) The Inter-American Conference; 

(b) The Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of 
Foreign Affairs; 

(c) The Council; 

(d) The Pan American Union; 

(e) The Specialized Conferences; and 
(/*) The Specialized Organizations. 

Chapter X. The Inter- American Conference 

Article 33. The Inter-American Conference is 
the supreme organ of the Organization of American 
States. It decides the general action and policy of 
the Organization and determines the strucurte and 
functions of its Organs, and has the authority to 
consider any matter relating to friendly relations 
among the American States. These functions shall 
be carried out in accordance with the provisions of 
this Charter and of other inter-American treaties. 

Article 34. All Member States have the right 

855422—50 2 



10 

to be represented at the Inter-American Conference. 
Each State has the right to one vote. 

Article 35. The Conference shall convene every 
five years at the time fixed by the Council of the 
Organization, after consultation with the govern- 
ment of the country where the Conference is to be 
held. 

Article 36. In special circumstances and with 
the approval of two-thirds of the American Govern- 
ments, a special Inter-American Conference may 
be held, or the date of the next regular Conference 
may be changed. 

Article 37. Each Inter-American Conference 
shall designate the place of meeting of the next Con- 
ference. If for any unforeseen reason the Con- 
ference cannot be held at the place designated, the 
Council of the Organization shall designate a new 
place. 

Article 38. The program and regulations of the 
Inter-American Conference shall be prepared by the 
Council of the Organization and submitted to the 
Member States for consideration. 

Chapter XI. The Meeting of Consultation of 
Ministers of Foreign Affairs 

Article 39. The Meeting of Consultation of 
Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall be held in order to 
consider problems of an urgent nature and of com- 
mon interest to the American States, and to serve as 
the Organ of Consultation. 

Article 40. Any Member State may request that 
a Meeting of Consultation be called. The request 
shall be addressed to the Council of the Organiza- 
tion, which shall decide by an absolute majority 
whether a meeting should be held. 

Article 41 . The program and regulations of the 
Meeting of Consultation shall be prepared by the 



11 

Council of the Organization and submitted to the 
Member States for consideration. 

Article 42. If, for exceptional reasons, a Min- 
ister of Foreign Affairs is unable to attend the meet- 
ing, he shall be represented by a special delegate. 

Article 43. In case of an armed attack within 
the territory of an American State or within the 
region of security delimited by treaties in force, a 
Meeting of Consultation shall be held without delay. 
Such Meeting shall be called immediately by the 
Chairman of the Council of the Organization, who 
shall at the same time call a meeting of the Council 
itself. 

Article 44. An Advisory Defense Committee 
shall be established to advise the Organ of Consul- 
tation on problems of military cooperation that may 
arise in connection with the application of existing 
special treaties on collective security. 

Article 45. The Advisory Defense Committee 
shall be composed of the highest military authorities 
of the American States participating in the Meeting 
of Consultation. Under exceptional circumstances 
the Governments may appoint substitutes. Each 
State shall be entitled to one vote. 

Article 46. The Advisory Defense Committee 
shall be convoked under the same conditions as the 
Organ of Consultation, when the latter deals with 
matters relating to defense against aggression. 

Article 47. The Committee shall also meet 
when the Conference or the Meeting of Consulta- 
tion or the Governments, by a two-thirds majority 
of the Member States, assign to it technical studies 
or reports on specific subjects. 

Chapter XII. The Council 

Article 48. The Council of the Organization of 
American States is composed of one Representative 



12 

of each Member State of the Organization, especially 
appointed by the respective Government, with the 
rank of Ambassador. The appointment may be 
given to the diplomatic representative accredited to 
the Government of the country in which the Council 
has its seat. During the absence of the titular Rep- 
resentative, the Government may appoint an interim 
Representative. 

Article 49. The Council shall elect a Chairman 
and a Vice Chairman, who shall serve for one year 
and shall not be eligible for election to either of those 
positions for the term immediately following. 

Article SO. The Council takes cognizance, within 
the limits of the present Charter and of inter- 
American treaties and agreements, of any matter 
referred to it by the Inter-American Conference or 
the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign 
Affairs. 

Article 51. The Council shall be responsible for 
the proper discharge by the Pan American Union of 
the duties assigned to it. 

Article 52. The Council shall serve provision- 
ally as the Organ of Consultation when the circum- 
stances contemplated in Article 43 of this Charter 
arise. 

Article 53. It is also the duty of the Council: 

(a) To draft and submit to the Governments and 
to the Inter-American Conference proposals for the 
creation of new Specialized Organizations or for the 
combination, adaptation or elimination of existing 
ones, including matters relating to the financing and 
support thereof: 

(b) To draft recommendations to the Governments, 
the Inter-American Conference, the Specialized Con- 
ferences or the Specialized Organizations, for the 
coordination of the activities and programs of such 
organizations, after consultation with them; 



13 

(c) To conclude agreements with the Inter-Ameri- 
can Specialized Organizations to determine the 
relations that shall exist between the respective 
agency and the Organization; 

(d) To conclude agreements or special arrange- 
ments for cooperation with other American organi- 
zations of recognized international standing; 

(e) To promote and facilitate collaboration be- 
tween the Organization of American States and the 
United Nations, as well as between Inter-American 
Specialized Organizations and similar international 
agencies; 

(/) To adopt resolutions that will enable the Sec- 
retary General to perform the duties envisaged in 
Article 84; 

(g) To perform the other duties assigned to it by 
the present Charter. 

Article 54. The Council shall establish the 
bases for fixing the quota that each Government is to 
contribute to the maintenance of the Pan American 
Union, taking into account the ability to pay of the 
respective countries and their determination to con- 
tribute in an equitable manner. The budget, after 
approval by the Council, shall be transmitted to the 
Governments at least six months before the first day 
of the fiscal year, with a statement of the annual 
quota of each country. Decisions on budgetary 
matters require the approval of two-thirds of the 
members of the Council. 

Article 55. The Council shall formulate its own 
regulations. 

Article 56. The Council shall function at the 
seat of the Pan American Union. 

Article 57. The following are organs of the 
Council of the Organization of American States: 

(a) The Inter-American Economic and Social 
Council; 



14 

(b) The Inter-American Council of Jurists; and 

(c) The Inter-American Cultural Council. 

Article 58. The organs referred to in the pre- 
ceding article shall have technical autonomy within 
the limits of this Charter; but their decisions shall not 
encroach upon the sphere of action of the Council of 
the Organization. 

Article 59. The organs of the Council of the 
Organization are composed of representatives of all 
the Member States of the Organization. 

Article 60. The organs of the Council of the 
Organization shall, as far as possible, render to the 
Governments such technical services as the latter 
may request; and they shall advise the Council of the 
Organization on matters within their jurisdiction. 

Article 61. The organs of the Council of the 
Organization shall, in agreement with the Council, 
establish cooperative relations with the correspond- 
ing organs of the United Nations and with the 
national or international agencies that function 
within their respective spheres of action. 

Article 62. The Council of the Organization, 
with the advice of the appropirate bodies and after 
consultation with the Governments, shall formulate 
the statutes of its organs in accordance with and in 
the execution of the provisions of this Charter. The 
organs shall formulate their own regulations. 

(A) The Inter-American Economic and Social Council 

Article 63. The Inter-American Economic and 
Social Council has for its principal purpose the pro- 
motion of the economic and social welfare of the 
American nations through effective cooperation for 
the better utilization of their natural resources, the 
development of their agriculture and industry and 
the raising of the standards of living of their peoples. 



IS 

Article 64. To accomplish this purpose the 
Council shall: 

(a) Propose the means by which the American 
nations may give each other technical assistance in 
making studies and formulating and executing plans 
to carry out the purposes referred to in Article 26 and 
to develop and improve their social services; 

(b) Act as coordinating agency for all official inter- 
American activities of an economic and social nature; 

(c) Undertake studies on its own initiative or at 
the request of any Member State; 

(d) Assemble and prepare reports on economic and 
social matters for the use of the Member States; 

(<?) Suggest to the Council of the Organization the 
advisability of holding specialized conferences on 
economic and social matters; 

(/) Carry on such other activities as may be as- 
signed to it by the Inter-American Conference, the 
Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign 
Affairs, or the Council of the Organization. 

Article 65. The Inter-American Economic and 
Social Council, composed of technical delegates 
appointed by each Member State, shall meet on its 
own initiative or on that of the Council of the 
Organization. 

Article 66. The Inter-American Economic and 
Social Council shall function at the seat of the Pan 
American Union, but it may hold meetings in any 
American city by a majority decision of the Member 
States. 

(B) The Inter- American Council of Jurists 

Article 67. The purpose of the Inter-American 
Council of Jurists is to serve as an advisory body 
on juridical matters; to promote the development and 
codification of public and private international law; 
and to study the possibility of attaining uniformity 



16 

in the legislation of the various American countries, 
insofar as it may appear desirable. 

Article 68. The Inter-American Juridical Com- 
mittee of Rio de Janeiro shall be the permanent com- 
mittee of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. 

Article 69. The Juridical Committee shall be 
composed of jurists of the nine countries selected by 
the Inter-American Conference. The selection of the 
jurists shall be made by the Inter-American Council 
of Jurists from a panel submitted by each country 
chosen by the Conference. The Members of the 
Juridical Committee represent all Member States 
of the Organization. The Council of the Organiza- 
tion is empowered to fill any vacancies that occur 
during the intervals between Inter-American Con- 
ferences and between meetings of the Inter-American 
Council of Jurists. 

Article 70. The Juridical Committee shall un- 
dertake such studies and preparatory work as are 
assigned to it by the Inter-American Council ot 
Jurists, the Inter-American Conference, the Meeting 
of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, or 
the Council of the Organization. It may also under- 
take those studies and projects which, on its own 
initiative, it considers advisable. 

Article 71. The Inter-American Council of 
Jurists and the Juridical Committee should seek the 
cooperation of national committees for the codifica- 
tion of international law, of institutes of international 
and comparative law, and of other specialized 
agencies. 

Article 72. The Inter- American Council of 
Jurists shall meet when convened by the Council of 
the Organization, at the place determined by the 
Council of Jurists at its previous meeting. 



17 

(C) The Inter- American Cultural Council 

Article 73. The purpose of the Inter-American 
Cultural Council is to promote friendly relations and 
mutual understanding among the American peoples, 
in order to strengthen the peaceful sentiments that 
have characterized the evolution of America, through 
the promotion of educational, scientific and cultural 
exchange. 

Article 74. To this end the principal functions 
of the Council shall be: 

{a) To sponsor inter-American cultural activities; 

(b) To collect and supply information on cultural 
activities carried on in and among the American 
States by private and official agencies both national 
and international in character; 

(c) To promote the adoption of basic educational 
programs adapted to the needs of all population 
groups in the American countries; 

(d) To promote, in addition, the adoption of special 
programs of training, education and culture for the 
indigenous groups of the American countries; 

(e) To cooperate in the protection, preservation 
and increase of the cultural heritage of the continent; 

(/) To promote cooperation among the American 
nations in the fields of education, science and culture, 
by means of the exchange of materials for research 
and study, as well as the exchange of teachers, 
students, specialists and, in general, such other per- 
sons and materials as are useful for the realization 
of these ends; 

(g) To encourage the education of the peoples for 
harmonious international relations; 

(h) To carry on such other activities as may be 
assigned to it by the Inter-American Conference, the 
Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign 
Affairs, or the Council of the Organization. 



18 

Article 75. The Inter-American Cultural Coun- 
cil shall determine the place of its next meeting and 
shall be convened by the Council of the Organization 
on the date chosen by the latter in agreement with 
the Government of the country selected as the seat 
of the meeting. 

Article 76. There shall be a Committee for 
Cultural Action of which five States, chosen at 
each Inter-American Conference, shall be members. 
The individuals composing the Committee for Cul- 
tural Action shall be selected by the Inter-American 
Cultural Council from a panel submitted by each 
country chosen by the Conference, and they shall be 
specialists in education or cultural matters. When 
the Inter-American Cultural Council and the Inter- 
American Conference are not in session, the Council 
of the Organization may fill vacancies that arise and 
replace those countries that find it necessary to dis- 
continue their cooperation. 

Article 77 . The Committee for Cultural Action 
shall function as the permanent committee of the 
Inter-American Cultural Council, for the purpose 
of preparing any studies that the latter may assign 
to it. With respect to these studies the Council 
shall have the final decision. 

Chapter XIII. The Pan American Union 

Article 78. The Pan American Union is the 
central and permanent organ of the Organization 
of American States and the General Secretariat of 
the Organization. It shall perform the duties 
assigned to it in this Charter and such other duties 
as may be assigned to it in other inter-American 
treaties and agreements. 

Article 79. There shall be a Secretary General 
of the Organization, who shall be elected by the 



19 

Council for a ten-year term and who may not be 
reelected or be succeeded by a person of the same 
nationality. In the event of a vacancy in the ffice 
of Secretary General, the Council shall, within the 
next ninety days, elect a successor to fill the office for 
the remainder of the term, who may be reelected if 
the vacancy occurs during the second half of the 
term. 

Article 80. The Secretary General shall direct 
the Pan American Union and be the legal repre- 
sentative thereof. 

Article 81. The Secretary General shall partici- 
page with voice, but without vote, in the delibera- 
tions of the Inter-American Conference, the Meeting 
of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the 
Specialized Conferences, and the Council and its 
organs. 

Article 82. The Pan American Union, through 
its technical and information offices, shall, under the 
direction of the Council, promote economic, social, 
juridical and cultural relations among all the Member 
States of the Organization. 

Article 83. The Pan American Union shall also 
perform the following functions: 

(a) Transmit ex officio to Member States the convo- 
cation to the Inter-American Conference, the Meet- 
ing of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 
and the Specialized Conferences; 

(Jo) Advise the Council and its organs in the pre- 
paration of programs and regulations of the Inter- 
American Conference, the Meeting of Consultation of 
Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and the Specialized 
Conferences; 

(c) Place, to the extent of its ability, at the disposal 
of the Government of the country where a conference 
is to be held, the technical aid and personnel which 
such Government may request; 



20 

(d) Serve as custodian of the documents and ar- 
chives of the Inter-American Conference, of the 
Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Af- 
fairs, and, insofar as possible, of the Specialized 
Conterences; 

(e) Serve as depository of the instruments of rati- 
fication of inter-American agreements; 

(/) Perform the functions entrusted to it by the 
Inter-American Conference, and the Meeting of Con- 
sultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs; 

(g) Submit to the Council an annual report on the 
activities of the Organization; 

(A) Submit to the Inter-American Conference a re- 
port on the work accomplished by the Organs of the 
Organization since the previous Conference. 

Article 84. It is the duty of the Secretary 
General: 

(a) To establish, with the approval of the Council, 
such technical and administrative offices of the Pan 
American Union as are necessary to accomplish its 
purposes; 

(b) To determine the number of department heads, 
officers and employees of the Pan American Union; to 
appoint them, regulate their powers and duties, and 
fix their compensation, in accordance with general 
standards established by the Council. 

Article 85 . There shall be an Assistant Secretary 
General, elected by the Council for a term of ten 
years and eligible for reelection. In the event of a 
vacancy in the office of Assistant Secretary General, 
the Council shall, within the next ninety days, elect a 
successor to fill such office for the remainder of the 
term. 

Article 86 . The Assistant Secretary General shall 
be the Secretary of the Council. He shall perform 
the duties of the Secretary General during the tempo- 
rary absence or disability of the latter, or during the 



21 

ninety-day vacancy referred to in Article 79. He 
shall also serve as advisory officer to the Secretary 
General, with the power to act as his delegate in all 
matters that the Secretary General may entrust to 
him. 

Article 87. The Council, by a two- thirds vote 
of its members, may remove the Secretary General or 
the Assistant Secretary General whenever the proper 
functioning of the Organization so demands. 

Article 88. The heads of the respective depart- 
ments of the Pan American Union, appointed by the 
Secretary General, shall be the Executive Secretaries 
of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council, 
the Council of Jurists and the Cultural Council. 

Article 89. In the performance of their duties 
the personnel shall not seek or receive instructions 
from any government or from any other authority 
outside the Pan American Union. They shall refrain 
from any action that might reflect upon their position 
as international officials responsible only to the Union. 

Article 90. Every Member of the Organization 
of American States pledges itself to respect the ex- 
clusively international character of the responsibili- 
ties of the Secretary General and the personnel, and 
not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their 
duties. 

Article 91. In selecting its personnel the Pan 
American Union shall give first consideration to effi- 
ciency, competence and integrity; but at the same 
time importance shall be given to the necessity of 
recruiting personnel on as broad a geographical basis 
as possible. 

Article 92. The seat of the Pan American Union 
is the city of Washington. 



22 

Chapter XIV. The Specialized Conferences 

Article 93. The Specialized Conferences shall 
meet to deal with special technical matters or to de- 
velop specific aspects of inter-American cooperation, 
when it is so decided by the Inter-American Confer- 
ence or the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of 
Foreign Affairs; when inter-American agreements so 
provide; or when the Council of the Organization con- 
siders it necessary, either on its own initiative or at 
the request of one of its organs or of one of the 
Specialized Organizations. 

Article 94. The program and regulations of the 
Specialized Conferences shall be prepared by the 
organs of the Council of the Organization or by the 
Specialized Organizations concerned; they shall be 
submitted to the Member Governments for considera- 
tion and transmitted to the Council for its informa- 
tion. 

Chapter XV. The Specialized Organizations 

Article 95. For the purposes of the present 
Charter, Inter-American Specialized Organizations 
are the intergovernmental organizations established 
by multilateral agreements and having specific func- 
tions with respect to technical matters of common 
interest to the American States. 

Article 96. The Council shall, for the purposes 
stated in Article 53, maintain a register of the Organi- 
zations that fulfill the conditions set forth in the fore- 
going Article. 

Article 97. The Specialized Organizations shall 
enjoy the fullest technical autonomy and shall take 
into account the recommendations of the Council, in 
conformity with the provisions of the present Charter. 

Article 98. The Specialized Organizations shall 
submit to the Council periodic reports on the progress 



23 

of their work and on their annual budgets and 
expenses. 

Article 99. Agreements between the Council and 
the Specialized Organizations contemplated in para- 
graph (c) of Article S3 may provide that such Organi- 
zations transmit their budgets to the Council for ap- 
proval. Arrangements may also be made for the Pan 
American Union to receive the quotas of the contrib- 
uting countries and distribute them in accordance 
with the said agreements. 

Article 100. The Specialized Organizations shall 
establish cooperative relations with world agencies of 
the same character in order to coordinate their activi- 
ties. In concluding agreements with international 
agencies of a world-wide character, the Inter-Ameri- 
can Specialized Organizations shall preserve their 
identity and their status as integral parts of the 
Organization of American States, even when they per- 
form regional functions of international agencies. 

Article 101 . In determining the geographic loca- 
tion of the Specialized Organizations the interests of 
all the American States shall be taken into account. 

PART THREE 

Chapter XVI. The United Nations 

Article 102. None of the provisions of this 
Charter shall be construed as impairing the rights and 
obligations of the Member States under the Charter 
of the United Nations. 

Chapter XVII. Miscellaneous Provisions 

Article 103. The Organization of American 
States shall enjoy in the territory of each Member 
such legal capacity, privileges and immunities as are 
necessary for the exercise of its functions and the ac- 
complishment of its purposes. 



24 

Article 104. The Representatives of the Govern- 
ments on the Council of the Organization, the repre- 
sentatives on the organs of the Council, the personnel 
of their delegations, as well as the Secretary General 
and the Assistant Secretary General of the Organiza- 
tion, shall enjoy the privileges and immunities neces- 
sary for the independent performance of their duties. 

Article 105. The juridical status of the Inter- 
American Specialized Organizations and the privi- 
leges and immunities that should be granted to them 
and to their personnel, as well as to the officials of the 
Pan American Union, shall be determined in each 
case through agreements between the respective 
organizations and the Governments concerned. 

Article 106. Correspondence of the Organiza- 
tion of American States, including printed matter and 
parcels, bearing the frank thereof, shall be carried 
free of charge in the mails of the Member States. 

Article 107. The Organization of American 
States does not recognize any restriction on the eligi- 
bility of men and women to participate in the activi- 
ties of the various Organs and to hold positions 
therein. 

Chapter XVIII. Ratification and Entry 

Into Force 

Article 108. The present Charter shall remain 
open for signature by the American States and shall 
be ratified in accordance with their respective con- 
stitutional procedures. The original instrument, the 
Spanish, English, Portuguese and French texts of 
which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with 
the Pan American Union, which shall transmit certi- 
fied copies thereof to the Governments for purposes of 
ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be 
deposited with the Pan American Union, which shall 
notify the signatory States of such deposit. 



25 

Article 109. The present Charter shall enter 
into force among the ratifying States when two-thirds 
of the signatory States have deposited their ratifica- 
tions. It shall enter into force with respect to the 
remaining States in the order in which they deposit 
their ratifications. 

Article 110. The present Charter shall be regis- 
tered with the Secretariat of the United Nations 
through the Pan American Union. 

Article 111. Amendments to the present Char- 
ter may be adopted only at an Inter-American Con- 
ference convened for that purpose. Amendments 
shall enter into force in accordance with the terms 
and the procedure set forth in Article 109. 

Article 112. The present Charter shall remain in 
force indefinitely, but may be denounced by any 
Member State upon written notification to the Pan 
American Union, which shall communicate to all the 
others each notice of denunciation received. After 
two years from the date on which the Pan American 
Union receives a notice of denunciation, the present 
Charter shall cease to be in force with respect to the 
denouncing State, which shall cease to belong to the 
Organization after it has fulfilled the obligations aris- 
ing from the present Charter. 

In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipoten- 
tiaries, whose full powers have been presented and 
found to be in good and due form, sign the present 
Charter at the city of Bogota, Colombia, on the 
dates that appear opposite their respective signatures. 

[The Charter was signed on behalf of 21 American Republics.] 



855422—50- 



26 

2. American Treaty of Pacific Settlement : 
"Pact of Bogota," 

Bogota, 30 April 1948 

Note. Various conferences of the American States have adopted instrumen ts 
concerning the pacific settlement of disputes, the more important being: (1) 
The Treaty to Avoid or Prevent Conflicts Between the American States, 3 May 
1923 (U. S. Treaty Series, No. 752); (2) the General Convention of Inter- 
American Conciliation, 5 January 1929 (U. S. Treaty Series, No. 780); (3) the 
General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration and Additional Protocol of 
Progressive Arbitration, 5 January 1929 (U. S. Treaty Series, No. 886); (4) 
the Anti-War Treaty of Non-Aggression and Conciliation, 10 October 1933 
(U. S. Treaty Series, No. 906); (5) the Convention to Coordinate, Extend and 
Assure the Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties Between the American States, 
23 December 1936 (U. S. Treaty Series, No. 926); (6) the Inter-American 
Treaty on Good Offices and Mediation, 23 December 1936 (U. S. Treaty Series, 
No. 925); and (7) the Treaty on the Prevention of Controversies, 23 December 
1936 (U. S. Treaty Series, No. 924). 

The Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, held at 
Mexico City from 21 February to 8 March 1945, adopted a resolution calling 
for the coordination of the various continental agreements for the prevention 
and pacific solution of controversies. Drafts were prepared by the Inter- 
American Juridicial Committee and communicated to the Governments of the 
American continent in 1945 and 1947, leading to the adoption of this Treaty 
by the Ninth International Conference of American States at Bogota on 30 
April 1948. 

On 1 July 1949, a ratification of this Treaty had been deposited by Mexico. 

(Pan American Union Law and Treaty Series, No. 24). 

In the name of their peoples, the Governments rep- 
resented at the Ninth International Conference of 
American States have resolved, in fulfillment of Arti- 
cle XXIII of the Charter of the Organization of 
American States, to conclude the following Treaty: 

Chapter I. General Obligation to Settle 
Disputes by Pacific Means 

Article I. The High Contracting Parties, sol- 
emnly reaffirming their commitments made in earlier 
international conventions and declarations, as well as 
in the Charter of the United Nations, agree to refrain 
from the threat or the use of force, or from any other 
means of coercion for the settlement of their contro- 
versies, and to have recourse at all times to pacific 
procedures. 



27 

Article II. The High Contracting Parties recog- 
nize the obligation to settle international controver- 
sies by regional pacific procedures before referring 
them to the Security Council of the United Nations. 

Consequently, in the event that a controversy 
arises between two or more signatory states which, in 
the opinion of the parties, cannot be settled by direct 
negotiations through the usual diplomatic channels, 
the parties bind themselves to use the procedures 
established in the present Treaty, in the manner and 
under the conditions provided for in the following 
articles, or, alternatively, such special procedures as, 
in their opinion, will permit them to arrive at a 
solution. 

Article III. The order of the pacific procedures 
established in the present Treaty does not signify that 
the parties may not have recourse to the procedure 
which they consider most appropriate in each case, or 
that they should use all these procedures, or that any 
of them have preference over others except as ex- 
pressly provided. 

Article IV. Once any pacific procedure has been 
initiated, whether by agreement between the parties 
or in fulfillment of the present Treaty or a previous 
pact, no other procedure may be commenced until 
that procedure is concluded. 

Article V. The aforesaid procedures may not be 
applied to matters which, by their nature, are within 
the domestic jurisdiction of the state. If the parties 
are not in agreement as to whether the controversy 
concerns a matter of domestic jurisdiction, this pre- 
liminary question shall be submitted to decision by 
the International Court of Justice, at the request of 
any of the parties. 

Article VI. The aforesaid procedures, further- 
more, may not be applied to matters already settled 
by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral 



28 

award or by decision of an international court, or 
which are governed by agreements or treaties in force 
on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty. 

Article VII. The High Contracting Parties bind 
themselves not to make diplomatic representations in 
order to protect their nationals, or to refer a contro- 
versy to a court of international jurisdiction for that 
purpose, when the said nationals have had available 
the means to place their case before competent 
domestic courts of the respective state. 

Article VIII. Neither recourse to pacific means 
for the solution of controversies, nor the recommen- 
dation of their use, shall, in the case of an armed at- 
tack, be ground for delaying the exercise of the right 
of individual or collective self-defense, as provided for 
in the Charter of the United Nations. 

Chapter II. Procedures of Good Offices and 

Mediation 

Article IX. The procedure of good offices consists 
in the attempt by one or more American Govern- 
ments not parties to the controversy, or by one or 
more eminent citizens of any American State which 
is not a party to the controversy, to bring the parties 
together, so as to make it possible for them to reach 
an adequate solution between themselves. 

Article X. Once the parties have been brought 
together and have resumed direct negotiations, no 
further action is to be taken by the states or citizens 
that have offered their good offices or have accepted 
an invitation to offer them; they may, however, by 
agreement between the parties, be present at the 
negotiations. 

Article XI. The procedure of mediation consists 
in the submission of the controversy to one or more 
American Governments not parties to the contro- 
versy, or to one or more eminent citizens of any 



29 

American State not a party to the controversy. In 
either case the mediator or mediators shall be chosen 
by mutual agreement between the parties. 

Article XII. The functions of the mediator or 
mediators shall be to assist the parties in the settle- 
ment of controversies in the simplest and most direct 
manner, avoiding formalities and seeking an accept- 
able solution. No report shall be made by the medi- 
ator and, so far as he is concerned, the proceedings 
shall be wholly confidential. 

Article XIII. In the event that the High Con- 
tracting Parties have agreed to the procedure of medi- 
ation but are unable to reach an agreement within 
two months on the selection of the mediator or medi- 
ators, or no solution to the controversy has been 
reached within five months after mediation has be- 
gun, the parties shall have recourse without delay to 
any one of the other procedures of peaceful settlement 
established in the present Treaty. 

Article XIV. The High Contracting Parties may 
offer their mediation, either individually or jointly, 
but they agree not to do so while the controversy is 
in process of settlement by any of the other pro- 
cedures established in the present Treaty. 

Chapter III. Procedure of Investigation 
and Conciliation 

Article XV. The procedure of investigation and 
conciliation consists in the submission of the contro- 
versy to a Commission of Investigation and Concili- 
ation, which shall be established in accordance with 
the provisions established in subsequent articles of 
the present Treaty, and which shall function within 
the limitations prescribed therein. 

Article XVI. The party initiating the procedure 
of investigation and conciliation shall request the 



30 

Council of the Organization of American States to 
convoke the Commission of Investigation and Con- 
ciliation. The Council for its part shall take imme- 
diate steps to convoke it. 

Once the request to convoke the Commision has 
been received, the controversy between the parties 
shall immediately be suspended, and the parties shall 
refrain from any act that might make conciliation 
more difficult. To that end, at the request of one of 
the parties, the Coucil of the Organization of Ameri- 
can States may, pending the convocation of the 
Commission, make appropriate recommendations to 
the parties. 

Article XVII. Each of the High Contracting 
Parties may appoint, by means of a bilateral agree- 
ment consisting of a simple exchange of notes with 
each of the other signatories, two members of the 
Commission of Investigation and Conciliation, only 
one of whom may be of its own nationality. The 
fifth member, who shall perform the functions of 
chairman, shall be selected immediately by common 
agreement of the members thus appointed. 

Any one of the contracting parties may remove 
members whom it has appointed, whether nationals 
or aliens; at the same time it shall appoint the suc- 
cessor. If this is not done, the removal shall be 
considered as not having been made. The appoint- 
ments and substitutions shall be registered with the 
Pan American Union, which shall endeavor to ensure 
that the commissions maintain their full complement 
of five members. 

Article XVIII. Without prejudice to the pro- 
visions of the foregoing article, the Pan American 
Union shall draw up a permanent panel of American 
conciliators, to be made up as follows: 

{a) Each of the High Contracting Parties shall 
appoint, for three-year periods, two of their 



31 

nationals who enjoy the highest reputation for 
fairness, competence and integrity; 

(b) The Pan American Union shall request of 
the candidates notice of their formal acceptance, 
and it shall place on the panel of conciliators the 
names of the persons who so notify it; 

(c) The governments may, at any time, fill 
vacancies occurring among their appointees; and 
they may reappoint their members. 

Article XIX. In the event that a controversy 
should arise between two or more American States 
that have not appointed the Commission referred to 
in Article XVII, the following procedure shall be 
observed: 

(a) Each party shall designate two members 
from the permanent panel of American concili- 
ators, who are not of the same nationality as the 
appointing party. 

(b) These four members shall in turn choose a 
fifth member, from the permanent panel, not of 
the nationality of either party. 

(c) If, within a period of thirty days following 
the notification of their selection, the four mem- 
bers are unable to agree upon a fifth member, 
they shall each separately list the conciliators 
composing the permanent panel, in order of their 
preference, and upon comparison of the lists so 
prepared, the one who first receives a majority 
of votes shall be declared elected. The person 
so elected shall perform the duties of chairman 
of the Commission. 

Article XX. In convening the Commisison of In- 
vestigation and Conciliation, the Council of the 
Organization of American States shall determine the 
place where the Commission shall meet. Thereafter, 
the Commission may determine the place or places in 



32 

which it is to function, taking into account the best 
facilities for the performance of its work. 

Article XXI. When more than two states are in- 
volved in the same controversy, the states that hold 
similar points of view shall be considered as a single 
party. If they have different interests they shall be 
entitled to increase the number of conciliators in 
order that all parties may have equal representation. 
The chairman shall be elected in the manner set forth 
in Article XIX. 

Article XXII. It shall be the duty of the Com- 
mission of Investigation and Conciliation to clarify 
the points in dispute between the parties and to en- 
deavor to bring about an agreement between them 
upon mutually acceptable terms. The Commission 
shall institute such investigations of the facts involved 
in the controversy as it may deem necessary for the 
purpose of proposing acceptable bases of settlement. 

Article XXIII. It shall be the duty of the parties 
to facilitate the work of the Commission and to sup- 
ply it, to the fullest extent possible, with all useful 
documents and information, and also to use the 
means at their disposal to enable the Commission to 
summon and hear witnesses or experts and perform 
other tasks in the territories of the parties, in con- 
formity with their laws. 

Article XXIV. During the proceedings before 
the Commission, the parties shall be represented by 
plenipotentiary delegates or by agents, who shall 
serve as intermediaries between them and the Com- 
mission. The parties and the Commission may use 
the services of technical advisers and experts. 

Article XXV. The Commission shall conclude its 
work within a period of six months from the date of 
its installation; but the parties may, by mutual 
agreement, extend the period. 

Article XXVI. If, in the opinion of the parties ^ 



33 

the controversy relates exclusively to questions of 
fact, the Commission shall limit itself to investigating 
such questions, and shall conclude its activities with 
an appropriate report. 

Article XXVII. If an agreement is reached by 
conciliation, the final report of the Commission shall 
be limited to the text of the agreement and shall be 
published after its transmittal to the parties, unless 
the parties decide otherwise. If no agreement is 
reached, the final report shall contain a summary of 
the work of the Commission; it shall be delivered to 
the parties, and shall be published after the expiration 
of six months unless the parties decide otherwise. In 
both cases, the final report shall be adopted by a 
majority vote. 

Article XXVIII. The reports and conclusions of 
the Commission of Investigation and Conciliation 
shall not be binding upon the parties, either with 
respect to the statement of facts or in regard to ques- 
tions of law, and they shall have no other character 
than that of recommendations submitted for the con- 
sideration of the parties in order to facilitate a friendly 
settlement of the controversy. 

Article XXIX. The Commission of Investigation 
and Conciliation shall transmit to each of the parties, 
as well as to the Pan American Union, certified copies 
of the minutes of its proceedings. These minutes 
shall not be published unless the parties so decide. 

Article XXX. Each member of the Commission 
shall receive financial remuneration, the amount of 
which shall be fixed by agreement between the parties. 
If the parties do not agree thereon, the Council of the 
Organization shall determine the remuneration. 
Each government shall pay its own expenses and an 
equal share of the common expenses of the Commis- 
sion, including the aforementioned remunerations. 



34 

Chapter IV. Judicial Procedure 

Article XXXI. In conformity with Article 36, para- 
graph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of 
Justice, the High Contracting Parties declare that 
they recognize, in relation to any other American 
State, the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory 
ipso facto, without the necessity of any special agree- 
ment so long as the present Treaty is in force, in all 
disputes of a juridical nature that arise among them 
concerning: 

(a) The interpretation of a treaty; 

(b) Any question of international law; 

(c) The existence of any fact which, if estab- 
lished, would constitute the breach of an inter- 
national obligation; 

(d) The nature or extent of the reparation to 
be made for the breach of an international 
obligation. 

Article XXXII. When the conciliation procedure 
previously established in the present Treaty or by 
agreement of the parties does not lead to a solution, 
and the said parties have not agreed upon an arbitral 
procedure, either of them shall be entitled to have 
recourse to the International Court of Justice in the 
manner prescribed in Article 40 of the Statute thereof. 
The Court shall have compulsory jurisdiction in ac- 
cordance with Article 36, paragraph 1, of the said 
Statute. 

Article XXXIII. If the parties fail to agree as to 
whether the Court has jurisdiction over the contro- 
versy, the Court itself shall first decide that question. 

Article XXXIV. If the Court, for the reasons set 
forth in Articles V, VI and VII of this Treaty, 
declares itself to be without jurisdiction to hear the 
controversy, such controversy shall be declared 
ended. 



35 

Article XXXV. If the Court for any other reason 
declares itself to be without jurisdiction to hear and 
adjudge the controversy, the High Contracting Par- 
ties obligate themselves to submit it to arbitration, 
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Five of 
this Treaty. 

Article XXXVI. In the case of controversies sub- 
mitted to the judicial procedure to which this Treaty 
refers, the decision shall devolve upon the full Court, 
or, if the parties so request, upon a special chamber 
in conformity with Article 26 of the Statute of the 
Court. The parties may agree, moreover, to have 
the controversy decided ex aequo et bono. 

Article XXXVII. The procedure to be followed 
by the Court shall be that established in the Statute 
thereof. 

Chapter V. Procedure of Arbitration 

Article XXXVIII. Notwithstanding the provi- 
sions of Chapter Four of this Treaty, the High Con- 
tracting Parties may, if they so agree, submit to 
arbitration differences of any kind, whether juridical 
or not, that have arisen or may arise in the future 
between them. 

Article XXXIX. The Arbitral Tribunal to which 
a controversy is to be submitted shall, in the cases 
contemplated in Articles XXXV and XXXVIII of 
the present Treaty, be constituted in the following 
manner, unless there exists an agreement to the 
contrary. 

Article XL. (1) Within a period of two months 
after notification of the decision of the Court in the 
case provided for in Article XXXV, each party shall 
name one arbiter of recognized competence in ques- 
tions of international law and of the highest integrity, 
and shall transmit the designation to the Council of 
the Organization. At the same time, each party 



36 

shall present to the Council a list of ten jurists chosen 
from among those on the general panel of members of 
the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague 
who do not belong to its national group and who are 
willing to be members of the Arbitral Tribunal. 

(2) The Council of the Organization shall, within 
the month following the presentation of the lists, pro- 
ceed to establish the Arbitral Tribunal in the follow- 
ing manner: 

(a) If the lists presented by the parties contain 
three names in common, such persons, together 
with the two directly named by the parties, shall 
constitute the Arbitral Tribunal; 

(b) In case these lists contain more than three 
names in common, the three arbiters needed to 
complete the Tribunal shall be selected by lot; 

(c) In the circumstances envisaged in the two 
preceding clauses, the five arbiters designated 
shall choose one of their number as presiding 
officer; 

id) If the lists contain only two names in com- 
mon, such candidates and the two arbiters 
directly selected by the parties shall by common 
agreement choose the fifth arbiter, who shall 
preside over the Tribunal. The choice shall de- 
volve upon a jurist on the aforesaid general panel 
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The 
Hague who has not been included in the lists 
drawn up by the parties; 

(e) If the lists contain only one name in com- 
mon, that person shall be a member of the Tri- 
bunal, and another name shall be chosen by lot 
from among the eighteen jurists remaining on the 
above-mentioned lists. The presiding officer 
shall be elected in accordance with the procedure 
established in the preceding clause; 



37 

(/) If the lists contain no names in common, 
one arbiter shall be chosen by lot from each of the 
lists; and the fifth arbiter, who shall act as presid- 
ing officer, shall be chosen in the manner pre- 
viously indicated; 

(g) If the four arbiters cannot agree upon a 
fifth arbiter within one month after the Council 
of the Organization has notified them of their 
appointment, each of them shall separately ar- 
range the list of jurists in the order of their 
preference and, after comparison of the lists so 
formed, the person who first obtains a majority 
vote shall be declared elected. 
Article XLI. The parties may by mutual agree- 
ment establish the Tribunal in the manner they deem 
most appropriate; they may even select a single 
arbiter, designating in such case a chief of state, an 
eminent jurist, or any court of justice in which the 
parties have mutual confidence. 

Article XLII. When more than two states are 
involved in the same controversy, the states defend- 
ing the same interests shall be considered as a single 
party. If they have opposing interests they shall 
have the right to increase the number of arbiters so 
that all parties may have equal representation. The 
presiding officer shall be selected by the method estab- 
lished in Article XL. 

Article XLIII. The parties shall in each case 
draw up a special agreement clearly defining the 
specific matter that is the subject of the controversy, 
the seat of the Tribunal, the rules of procedure to be 
observed, the period within which the award is to be 
handed down, and such other conditions as they may 
agree upon among themselves. 

If the special agreement cannot be drawn up within 
three months after the date of the installation of the 
Tribunal, it shall be drawn up by the International 



38 

Court of Justice through summary procedure, and 
shall be binding upon the parties. 

Article XLIV. The parties may be represented 
before the Arbitral Tribunal by such persons as they 
may designate. 

Article XLV. If one of the parties fails to desig- 
nate its arbiter and present its list of candidates 
within the period provided for in Article XL, the 
other party shall have the right to request the Council 
of the Organization to establish the Arbitral Tribunal. 
The Council shall immediately urge the delinquent 
party to fulfill its obligations within an additional 
period of fifteen days, after which time the Council 
itself shall establish the Tribunal in the following 
manner: 

(a) It shall select a name by lot from the list 
presented by the petitioning party. 

(b) It shall choose, by absolute majority vote, 
two jurists from the general panel of the Perma- 
nent Court of Arbitration of The Hague who do 
not belong to the national group of any of the 
parties. 

(c) The three persons so designated, together 
with the one directly chosen by the petitioning 
party, shall select the fifth arbiter, who shall act 
as presiding officer, in the manner provided for in 
Article XL. 

(d) Once the Tribunal is installed, the proced- 
ure established in article XLIII shall be followed. 

Article XLVI. The award shall be accompanied 
by a supporting opinion, shall be adopted by a major- 
ity vote, and shall be published after notification 
thereof has been given to the parties. The dissenting 
arbiter or arbiters shall have the right to state the 
grounds for their dissent. 

The award, once it is duly handed down and made 
known to the parties, shall settle the controversy 



39 

definitively, shall not be subject to appeal, and shall 
be carried out immediately. 

Article XLVII. Any differences that arise in 
regard to the interpretation or execution of the 
award shall be submitted to the decision of the 
Arbitral Tribunal that rendered the award. 

Article XL VIII. Within a year after notifica- 
tion thereof, the award shall be subject to review 
by the same Tribunal at the request of one of the 
parties, provided a previously existing fact is dis- 
covered unknown to the Tribunal and to the party 
requesting the review, and provided the Tribunal 
is of the opinion that such fact might have a decisive 
influence on the award. 

Article XLIX. Every member of the Tribunal 
shall receive financial remuneration, the amount of 
which shall be fixed by agreement between the 
parties. If the parties do not agree on the amount, 
the Council of the Organization shall determine the 
remuneration. Each Government shall pay its 
own expenses and an equal share of the common 
expenses of the Tribunal, including the aforemen- 
tioned remunerations. 

Chapter VI. Fulfillment of Decisions 

Article L. If one of the High Contracting Par- 
ties should fail to carry out the obligations imposed 
upon it by a decision of the International Court of 
Justice or by an arbitral award, the other party or 
parties concerned shall, before resorting to the 
Security Council of the United Nations, propose a 
Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign 
Affairs to agree upon appropriate measures to ensure 
the fulfillment of the judicial decision or arbitral 
award. 



40 

Chapter VII. Advisory Opinions 

Article LI. The parties concerned in the solu- 
tion of a controversy may, by agreement, petition 
the General Assembly or the Security Council of the 
United Nations to request an advisory opinion of the 
International Court of Justice on any juridical 
question. 

The petition shall be made through the Council of 
the Organization of American States. 

Chapter VIII. Final Provisions 

Article LII. The present Treaty shall be ratified 
by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with 
their constitutional procedures. The original in- 
strument shall be deposited in the Pan American 
Union, which shall transmit an authentic certified 
copy to each Government for the purpose of ratifica- 
tion. The instruments of ratification shall be de- 
posited in the archives of the Pan American Union, 
which shall notify the signatory governments of the 
deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an 
exchange of ratifications. 

Article LIII. This Treaty shall come into effect 
between the High Contracting Parties in the order 
in which they deposit their respective ratifications. 

Article LIV. Any American State which is not 
a signatory to the present Treaty, or which has made 
reservations thereto, may adhere to it, or may with- 
draw its reservations in whole or in part, by trans- 
mitting an official instrument to the Pan American 
Union, which shall notify the other High Contracting 
Parties in the manner herein established. 

Article LV. Should any of the High Contracting 
Parties make reservations concerning the present 
Treaty, such reservations shall, with respect to the 



41 

state that makes them, apply to all signatory states 
on the basis of reciprocity. 

Article LVI. The present Treaty shall remain 
in force indefinitely, but may be denounced upon one 
year's notice, at the end of which period it shall 
cease to be in force with respect to the state denounc- 
ing it, but shall continue in force for the remaining 
signatories. The denunciation shall be addressed to 
the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it 
to the other Contracting Parties. 

The denunciation shall have no effect with respect 
to pending procedures initiated prior to the trans- 
mission of the particular notification. 

Article LVII. The present Treaty shall be regis- 
tered with the Secretariat of the United Nations 
through the Pan American Union. 

Article LVIII. As this Treaty comes into effect 
through the successive ratifications of the High Con- 
tracting Parties, the following treaties, conventions 
and protocols shall cease to be in force with respect 
to such parties: 

Treaty to Avoid or Prevent Conflicts between the 
American States, of May 3, 1923; 

General Convention of Inter-American Concilia- 
tion, of January 5, 1929; 

General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration and 
Additional Protocol of Progressive Arbitration, of 
January 5, 1929; 

Additional Protocol to the General Convention of 
Inter- American Conciliation, of December 26, 1933; 

Anti-War Treaty of Non-Aggression and Concilia- 
tion, of October 10, 1933; 

Convention to Coordinate, Extend and Assure the 
Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties between the 
American States, of December 23, 1936; 

855422—50 4 



42 

Inter-American Treaty on Good Offices and Media- 
tion, of December 23, 1936; 

Treaty on the Prevention of Controversies, of 
December 23, 1936. 

Article LIX. The provisions of the foregoing 
Article shall not apply to procedures already initiated 
or agreed upon in accordance with any of the above- 
mentioned international instruments. 

Article LX. The present Treaty shall be called 
the "Pact of Bogota." 

In witness whereof, the undersigned Plenipoten- 
tiaries, having deposited their full powers, found to 
be in good and due form, sign the present Treaty, in 
the name of their respective Governments, on the 
dates appearing below their signatures. 

Done at the City of Bogota, in four texts, in the 
English, French, Portuguese and Spanish languages 
respectively, on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen 
hundred forty-eight. 

[The treaty was signed on behalf of 21 American republics.] 

Reservations 

Argentina 

"The Delegation of the Argentine Republic, on 
signing the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement 
(Pact of Bogota), makes reservations in regard to 
the following articles, to which it does not adhere: 

(1) VII, concerning the protection of aliens; 

(2) Chapter Four (Articles XXXI to XXXVII), 
Judicial Procedure; 

(3) Chapter Five (Articles XXXVIII to XLIX), 
Procedure of Arbitration; 

(4) Chapter Six (Article L), Fulfillment of De- 
cisions. 

Arbitration and judicial procedure have, as 



43 

institutions, the firm adherence of the Argentine Re- 
public, but the Delegation cannot accept the form in 
which the procedures for their application have been 
regulated, since, in its opinion, they should have been 
established only for controversies arising in the future 
and not originating in or having any relation to 
causes, situations or facts existing before the signing 
of this instrument. The compulsory execution of 
arbitral or judicial decisions and the limitation which 
prevents the states from judging for themselves in 
regard to matters that pertain to their domestic 
jurisdiction in accordance with Article V are contrary 
to Argentine tradition. The protection of aliens, 
who in the Argentine Republic are protected by its 
Supreme Law to the same extent as the nationals, is 
also contrary to that tradition." 

Bolivia 

"The Delegation of Bolivia makes a reservation 
with regard to Article VI, inasmuch as it considers 
that pacific procedures may also be applied to con- 
troversies arising from matters settled by arrange- 
ment between the Parties, when the said arrangement 
affects the vital interests of a state." 

Ecuador 

"The Delegation of Ecuador, upon signing this 
Pact, makes an express reservation with regard to 
Article VI and also every provision that contradicts 
or is not in harmony with the principles proclaimed 
by or the stipulations contained in the Charter of 
the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization 
of American States, or the Constitution of the Re- 
public of Ecuador." 

United States of America 

"1. The United States does not undertake as the 
complainant State to submit to the International 



44 

Court of Justice any controversy which is not con- 
sidered to be properly within the jurisdiction of 
the Court. 

2. The submission on the part of the United States 
of any controversy to arbitration, as distinguished 
from judicial settlement, shall be dependent upon the 
conclusion of a special agreement between the parties 
to the case. 

3 . The acceptance by the United States of the 
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as 
compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, 
as provided in this Treaty, is limited by any juris- 
dictional or other limitations contained in any Dec- 
laration deposited by the United States under Article 
36, paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Court, and in 
force at the time of the submission of any case. 

4. The Government of the United States cannot 
accept Article VII relating to diplomatic protection 
and the exhaustion of remedies. For its part, the 
Government of the United States maintains the rules 
of diplomatic protection, including the rule of ex- 
haustion of local remedies by aliens, as provided by 
international law." 

Paraguay 

"The Delegation of Paraguay makes the following 
reservation: 

Paraguay stipulates the prior agreement of the 
parties as a prerequisite to the arbitration procedure 
established in this Treaty for every question of a non- 
juridical nature affecting national sovereignty and 
not specifically agreed upon in treaties now in force." 

Peru 

"The Delegation of Peru makes the following 
reservations: 

1. Reservation with regard to the second part of 



45 



Article V, because it considers that domestic juris- 
diction should be defined by the state itself. 

2. Reservation with regard to Article XXXIII and 
the pertinent part of Article XXXIV, inasmuch as 
it considers that the exceptions of res judicata, re- 
solved by settlement between the parties or governed 
by agreements and treaties in force, determine, in 
virtue of their objective and peremptory nature, the 
exclusion of these cases from the application of e ery 
procedure. 

3. Reservation with regard to Article XXXV, in 
the sense that, before arbitration is resorted to, there 
may be, at the request of one of the parties, a meet- 
ing of the Organ of Consultation, as established in 
the Charter of the Organization of American States. 

4. Reservation with regard to Article XLV, be- 
cause it believes that arbitration set up without the 
participation of one of the parties is in contradiction 
with its constitutional provisions." 

Nicaragua 

"The Nicaraguan Delegation, on giving its ap- 
proval to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement 
(Pact of Bogota) wishes to record expressly that no 
provisions contained in the said Treaty may prejudice 
any position assumed by the Government of Nica- 
ragua with respect to arbitral decisions the validity 
of which it has contested on the basis of the principles 
of international law, which clearly permit arbitral 
decisions to be attacked when they are adjudged to 
be null or invalidated. Consequently, the signature 
of the Nicaraguan Delegation to the Treaty in ques- 
tion cannot be alleged as an acceptance of any arbi- 
tral decisions that Nicaragua has contested and the 
validity of which is not certain. 

Hence the Nicaraguan Delegation reiterates the 
statement made on the 28th of the current month on 



46 

approving the text of the above mentioned Treaty 
in Committee III." 

3. Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration 
and Collective Self-defense, Brussels, 17 March 1948 

Note. On 21 January 1948, the United Kingdom and France began nego- 
tiations with Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg concerning a closer 
consolidation of western Europe. Representatives of the five countries met at 
Brussels from 4 March to 17 March 1948, and signed this treaty. By 25 
August 1948, all five of the signatories had deposited their ratifications at 
Brussels, and the treaty entered into force on that date. 

The first meeting of the Consultative Council provided for by Article VII 
of the treaty took place on 17 April 1948; it was decided that the Council, 
composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the five signatories, should meet 
at least once every three months. The Council has established in London a 
Permanent Commission composed of diplomatic representatives, a secretariat 
to assist the Permanent Commission, a Permanent Military Committee to 
examine common defense problems within the scope of the treaty, and an 
Economic Committee. On 4 October 1948, a Commander in Chief's Com- 
mittee was established, composed of Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery, 
Chairman; General de Lattre de Tassigny, Commander in Chief Land Forces; 
Air Marshal Sir James Robb, Commander in Chief Air Forces; and Vice Ad- 
miral Jaujard, Flag Officer as Naval Representative. 



(British Treaty Series, No. 1 (1949), Cmd. 7599; 18 Department of State 

Bulletin, 600.) 

His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Belgium, 
the President of the French Republic, President of 
the French Union, Her Royal Highness the Grand 
Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty the Queen of 
the Netherlands and His Majesty The King of 
Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions 
beyond the Seas, 

Resolved 

To reaffirm their faith in fundamental human 
rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person 
and in the other ideals proclaimed in the Charter of 
the United Nations; 

To fortify and preserve the principles of democ- 
racy, personal freedom and political liberty, the con- 
stitutional traditions and the rule of law, which are 
their common heritage; 



47 

To strengthen, with these aims in view, the eco- 
nomic, social and cultural ties by which they are 
already united; 

To co-operate loyally and to co-ordinate their ef- 
forts to create in western Europe a firm basis for 
European economic recovery; 

To afford assistance to each other, in accordance 
with the Charter of the United Nations, in main- 
taining international peace and security and in resist- 
ing any policy of aggression; 

To take such steps as may be held to be necessary 
in the event of a renewal by Germany of a policy of 
aggression; 

To associate progressively in the pursuance of 
these aims other States inspired by the same ideals 
and animated by the like determination; 

Desiring for these purposes to conclude a treaty 
for collaboration in economic, social and cultural 
matters and for collective self-defence; 

Have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries: 

His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Belgium 
His Excellency, Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, Prime 

Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and 
His Excellency Mr. Gaston Eyskens, Minister 

of Finance. 

The President of the French Republic, President of 
the French Union. 
His Excellency Mr. Georges Bidault, Minister of 

Foreign Affairs, and 
His Excellency Mr. Jean de Hauteclocque, Am- 
bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotenti- 
ary of the French Republic in Brussels. 

Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxem- 
bourg 
His Excellency Mr. Joseph Bech, Minister of 
Foreign Affairs, and 



48 

His Excellency Mr. Robert Als, Envoy Extraor- 
dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of 
Luxembourg in Brussels, 
Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands 

His Excellency Baron C. G. W. H. van Boet- 
zelaer van Oosterhout, Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, and 
His Excellency Baron Binnert Phillip van 
Harinxma thoe Slooton, Ambassado Extra- 
ordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Nether- 
lands in Brussels, 
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and 
the British Dominions beyond the Seas for the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and North- 
ern Ireland 
The Right Honourable Ernest Bevin, Member 
of Parliament, Principal Secretary of State 
for Foreign Affairs, and 
His Excellency Sir George William Rendel, K.C. 
M.G., Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni- 
potentiary of His Britannic Majesty in 
Brussels, 
who, having exhibited their full powers found in 
good and due form, have agreed as follows: 

Article I. Convinced of the close community of 
their interests and of the necessity of uniting in order 
to promote the economic recovery of Europe, the 
High Contracting Parties will so organize and co- 
ordinate their economic activities as to produce the 
best possible results, by the elimination of conflict in 
their economic policies, the co-ordination of produc- 
tion and the development of commercial exchanges. 
The co-operation provided for in the preceding 
paragraph, which will be effected through the Con- 
sultative Council referred to in Article VII as well as 
through other bodies, shall not involve any duplica- 
tion of, or prejudice to, the work of other economic 



49 

organizations in which the High Contracting Parties 
are or may be represented but shall on the contrary 
assist the work of those organizations. 

Article II. The High Contracting Parties will 
make every effort in common, both by direct con- 
sultation and in specialized agencies, to promote the 
attainment of a higher standard of living by their 
peoples and to develop on corresponding lines the 
social and other related services of their countries. 

The High Contracting Parties will consult with the 
object of achieving the earliest possible application 
of recommendations of immediate practical interest, 
relating to social matters, adopted with their ap- 
proval in the specialized agencies. 

They will endeavour to conclude as soon as pos- 
sible conventions with each other in the sphere of 
social security. 

Article III. The High Contracting Parties will 
make every effort in common to lead their peoples 
towards a better understanding of the principles 
which form the basis of their common civilization and 
to promote cultural exchanges by conventions be- 
tween themselves or by other means. 

Article IV. If any of the High Contracting 
Parties should be the object of an armed attack in 
Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the 
Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so 
attacked all the military and other aid and assistance 
in their power. 

Article V. All measures taken as a result of the 
preceding Article shall be immediately reported to 
the Security Council. They shall be terminated as 
soon as the Security Council has taken the measures 
necessary to maintain or restore international peace 
and Security. 

The present Treaty does not prejudice in any way 



50 

the obligations of the High Contracting Parties under 
the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. 
It shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way 
the authority and responsibility of the Security Coun- 
cil under the Charter to take at any time such action 
as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore 
international peace and security. 

Article VI. The High Contracting Parties de- 
clare, each so far as he is concerned, that none of the 
international engagements now in force between him 
and any other of the High Contracting Parties or any 
third State is in conflict with the provisions of the 
present Treaty. 

None of the High Contracting Parties will conclude 
any alliance or participate in any coalition directed 
against any other of the High Contracting Parties. 

Article VII. For the purpose of consulting to- 
gether on all the questions dealt with in the present 
Treaty, the High Contracting Parties will create a 
Consultative Council, which shall be so organized as 
to be able to exercise its functions continuously. 
The Council shall meet at such times as it shall deem fit. 

At the request of any of the High Contracting 
Parties, the Council shall be immediately convened 
in order to permit the High Contracting Parties to 
consult with regard to any situation which may con- 
stitute a threat to peace, in whatever area this threat 
should arise; with regard to the attitude to be adopted 
and the steps to be taken in case of a renewal by 
Germany of an aggressive policy; or with regard to 
any situation constituting a danger to economic 
stability. 

Article VIII. In pursuance of their determina- 
tion to settle disputes only by peaceful means, the 
High Contracting Parties will apply to disputes be- 
tween themselves the following provisions: 

The High Contracting Parties will, while the 



SI 

present Treaty remains in force, settle all disputes 
falling within the scope of Article 36, paragraph 2, 
of the Statute of the International Court of Justice 
by referring them to the Court, subject only, in the 
case of each of them, to any reservation already made 
by that Party when accepting this clause for com- 
pulsory jurisdiction to the extent that that Party 
may maintain the reservation. 

In addition, the High Contracting Parties will 
submit to conciliation all disputes outside the scope 
of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Inter- 
national Court of Justice. 

In the case of a mixed dispute involving both 
questions for which conciliation is appropriate and 
other questions for which judicial settlement is ap- 
propriate, any Party to the dispute shall have the 
right to insist that the judicial settlement of the 
legal questions shall precede conciliation. 

The preceding provisions of this Article in no way 
affect the application of relevant provisions or agree- 
ments prescribing some other method of pacific 
settlement. 

Article IX. The High Contracting Parties may, 
by agreement, invite any other State to accede to 
the present Treaty on conditions to be agreed be- 
tween them and the State so invited. 

Any State so invited may become a Party to the 
Treaty by depositing an instrument of accession 
with the Belgian Government. 

The Belgian Government will inform each of the 
High Contracting Parties of the deposit of each 
instrument of accession. 

Article X. The present Treaty shall be ratified 
and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited 
as soon as possible with the Belgian Government. 

It shall enter into force on the date of the deposit 



52 

of the last instrument of ratification and shall there- 
after remain in force for fifty years. 

After the expiry of the period of fifty years, each 
of the High Contracting Parties shall have the right 
to cease to be a party thereto provided that he shall 
have previously given one year's notice of denuncia- 
tion to the Belgian Government. 

The Belgian Government shall inform the Govern- 
ments of the other High Contracting Parties of the 
deposit of each instrument of ratification and of each 
notice of denunciation. 

In witness whereof, the above-mentioned Pleni- 
potentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have 
affixed thereto their seals. 

Done at Brussels, tihs seventeenth day of March 
1948, in English and French, each text being equally 
authentic, in a single copy which shall remain de- 
posited in the archives of the Belgian Government 
and of which certified copies shall be transmitted by 
that Government to each of the other signatories. 

4. North Atlantic Treaty, Washington, 4 April 1949 

Note. By a resolution of 11 June 1948 (19 Department of State Bulletin 
79, the Senate of the United States envisaged the "progressive development of 
regional and other collective arrangements for individual and collective self- 
defense in accordance with the purposes, principles, and provisions of the 
United Nations Charter," and the "association of the United States" with such 
regional and collective arrangements. Negotiations begun in July 1948 led 
to the signature of this treaty on 4 April 1949 by the Secretary of State of the 
United States and the Foreign Ministers of Canada, the United Kingdom, 
France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Italy, Denmark, 
Iceland, and Portugal. 

On 1 August 1949, ratifications of the treaty had been deposited by Belgium, 
Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

(Department of State Publication 3464.) 

PREAMBLE 

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in 
the purposes and principles of the Charter of the 



53 

United Nations and their desire to live in peace with 
all peoples and all governments. 

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, 
common heritage and civilization of their peoples, 
founded on the principles of democracy, individual 
liberty and the rule of law. 

They seek to promote stability and well-being in 
the North Atlantic area. 

They are resolved to unite their efforts for col- 
lective defense and for the preservation of peace and 
security. 

They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty: 

Article 1. The Parties undertake, as set forth 
in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any 
international disputes in which they may be involved 
by peaceful means in such a manner that interna- 
tional peace and security, and justice, are not en- 
dangered, and to refrain in their international 
relations from the threat or use of force in any 
manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United 
Nations. 

Article 2. The Parties will contribute toward 
the further development of peaceful and friendly 
international relations by strengthening their free 
institutions, by bringing about a better understand- 
ing of the principles upon which these institutions 
are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability 
and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict 
in their international economic policies and will en- 
courage economic collaboration between any or all of 
them. 

Article 3. In order more effectively to achieve 
the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately 
and jointly, by means of continuous and effective 
self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop 
their individual and collective capacity to resist 
armed attack. 



54 

Article 4. The Parties will consult together 
whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the terri- 
torial integrity, political independence or security of 
any of the Parties is threatened. 

Article 5. The Parties agree that an armed 
attack against one or more of them in Europe or 
North America shall be considered an attack against 
them all; and consequently they agree that, if such 
an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of 
the right of individual or collective self-defense 
recognized by Article 5 1 of the Charter of the United 
Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked 
by taking forthwith, individually and in concert 
with the other Parties, such action as it deems nec- 
essary, including the use of armed force, to restore 
and maintain the security of the North Atlantic 
area. 

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as 
a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the 
Security Council. Such measures shall be termi- 
nated when the Security Council has taken the 
measures necessary to restore and maintain interna- 
tional peace and security. 

Article 6. For the purpose of Article 5 an armed 
attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to 
include an armed attack on the territory of any of 
the Parties in Europe or North America, on the 
Algerian departments of France, on the occupation 
forces of any Party in Europe, on the islands under 
the jurisdiction of any Party in the North Atlantic 
area north of the Tropic of Cancer or on the vessels 
or aircraft in this area of any of the Parties. 

Article 7. This Treaty does not affect, and shall 
not be interpreted as affecting, in any way the rights 
and obligations under the Charter of the Parties 
which are members of the United Nations, or the 



55 

primary responsibility of the Security Council for 
the maintenance of international peace and security. 

Article 8. Each Party declares that none of the 
international engagements now in force between it 
and any other of the Parties or any third state is in 
conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and under- 
takes not to enter into any international engagement 
in conflict with this Treaty. 

Article 9. The Parties hereby establish a coun- 
cil, on which each of them shall be represented, to 
consider matters concerning the implementation of 
this Treaty. The council shall be so organized as 
to be able to meet promptly at any time. The 
council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may 
be necessary; in particular it shall establish imme- 
diately a defense committee which shall recommend 
measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5 . 

Article 10. The Parties may, by unanimous 
agreement, invite any other European state in a 
position to further the principles of this Treaty and 
to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic 
area to accede to this Treaty. Any state so invited 
may become a party to the Treaty by depositing its 
instrument of accession with the Government of the 
United States of America. The Government of the 
United States of America will inform each of the 
Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of 
accession. 

Article 11. This Treaty shall be ratified and its 
provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance 
with their respective constitutional processes. The 
instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon 
as possible with the Government of the United States 
of America, which will notify all the other signatories 
of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force 
between the states which have ratified it as soon as 



56 

the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, 
including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, 
France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United 
Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited 
and shall come into effect with respect to other states 
on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. 

Article 12. After the Treaty has been in force 
for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties 
shall, if any of them so request, consult together for 
the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard 
for the factors then affecting peace and security in 
the North Atlantic area, including the development 
of universal as well as regional arrangements under 
the Charter of the United Nations for the mainte- 
nance of international peace and security. 

Article 13. After the Treaty has been in force 
for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a party 
one year after its notice of denunciation has been 
given to the Government of the United States of 
America, which will inform the Governments of the 
other Parties of the deposit of each notice of de- 
nunciation. 

Article 14. This Treaty, of which the English 
and French texts are equally authentic, shall be 
deposited in the archives of the Government of the 
United States of America. Duly certified copies 
thereof will be transmitted by that Government to 
the Governments of the other signatories. 

In witness whereof, the undersigned plenipoten- 
tiaries have signed this Treaty. 

Done at Washington, the fourth day of April, 1949. 

[Signatures omitted.] 

5. Revised General Act For the Pacific Settlement of 
International Disputes, Lake Success, 28 April 1949 

Note. On 28 April 1949, the General Assembly of the United Nations 
adopted various amendments to the General Act adopted by the Assembly of 
the League of Nations on 26 September 1928, with a view to restoring the 



57 

General Act to its "original efficacy"; and the Secretary General was instructed 
to prepare a revised text including the amendments to be open to accession by 
States. United Nations Document A/900, 31 May 1949, p. 10. Twenty 
States had acceded to the original Act, the text of which is published in 93 
League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 343; 4 Hudson, International Legislation, 
p. 2529. 

[United Nations Document — J 

6. Statute of the Council of Europe, London, 5 May 1949 

Note. The Consultative Council created by the Treaty of Brussels of 17 
March 1948, decided on 28 January 1949, that a Council of Europe should be 
established. The Statute of the Council was signed at London on 5 May 1949, 
by representatives of Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, 
the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On 1 July 1949, 
the Statute had not been brought into force. A Preparatory Commission of 
the Council of Europe was also created on 5 May 1949 to enable the Council 
to operate as soon as the Statute enters into force [British Treaty Series, No. 
32 (1949), Cmd. 7687]. 

[British Command Paper 7686.] 

The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the 
Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Irish 
Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of 
Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the 
Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland. 

Convinced that the pursuit of peace based upon 
justice and international co-operation is vital for the 
preservation of human society and civilisation; 

Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and 
moral values which are the common heritage of their 
peoples and the true source of individual freedom, 
political liberty and the rule of law, principles which 
form the basis of all genuine democracy; 

Believing that, for the maintenance and further 
realisation of these ideals and in the interests of eco- 
nomic and social progress, there is need of a closer 
unity between all like-minded countries of Europe; 

Considering that, to respond to this need and to 
the expressed aspirations of their peoples in this 
regard, it is necessary forthwith to create an organi- 

855422—50 5 



58 

sation which will bring European States into closer 
association; 

Have in consequence decided to set up a Council 
of Europe consisting of a Committee of representa- 
tives of Governments and of a Consultative Assem- 
bly, and have for this purpose adopted the following 
Statute: — 

Chapter I. Aim of the Council of Europe 

Article 1 . (a) The aim of the Council of Europe 
is to achieve a greater unity between its Members 
for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the 
ideals and principles which are their common heri- 
tage and facilitating their economic and social 
progress. 

(b) This aim shall be pursued through the organs of 
the Council by discussion of questions of common 
concern and by agreements and common action in 
economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and ad- 
ministrative matters and in the maintenance and 
further realisation of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms. 

(c) Participation in the Council of Europe shall 
not affect the collaboration of its Members in the 
work of the United Nations and of other international 
organisations or unions to which they are parties. 

{d) Matters relating to National Defence do not 
fall within the scope of the Council of Europe. 

Chapter II. Membership 

Article 2. The Members of the Council of 
Europe are the Parties to this Statute. 

Article 3. Every Member of the Council of 
Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law 
and of the enjoyment by all persons within its juris- 
diction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the 



59 

realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in 
Chapter I. 

Article 4. Any European State, which is deemed 
to be able and willing to fulfil the provisions of Arti- 
cle 3, may be invited to become a Member of the 
Council of Europe by the Committee of Ministers. 
Any State so invited shall become a Member on the 
deposit on its behalf with the Secretary-General of 
an instrument of accession to the present Statute. 

Article 5. (a) In special circumstances, a Euro- 
pean country, which is deemed to be able and willing 
to fulfil the provisions of Article 3, may be invited by 
the Committee of Ministers to become an Associate 
Member of the Council of Europe. Any country so 
invited shall become an Associate Member on the 
deposit on its behalf with the Secretary-General of 
an instrument accepting the present Statute. An 
Associate Member shall be entitled to be represented 
in the Consultative Assembly only. 

(b) The expression "Member" in this Statute in- 
cludes an Associate Member except when used in 
connexion with representation on the Committee of 
Ministers. 

Article 6. Before issuing invitations under Arti- 
cles 4 or S above, the Committee of Ministers shall 
determine the number of representatives on the Con- 
sultative Assembly to which the proposed Member 
shall be entitled and its proportionate financial 
contribution. 

Article 7. Any Member of the Council of Europe 
may withdraw by formally notifying the Secretary- 
General of its intention to do so. Such withdrawal 
shall take effect at the end of the financial year in 
which it is notified, if the notification is given during 
the first nine months of that financial year. If the 
notification is given in the last three months of the 



60 

financial year, it shall take effect at the end of the 
next financial year. 

Article 8. Any Member of the Council of Eu- 
rope, which has seriously violated Article 3, may be 
suspended from its rights of representation and re- 
quested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw 
under Article 7. If such Member does not comply 
with this request, the Committee may decide that 
it has ceased to be a Member of the Council as from 
such date as the Committee may determine. 

Article 9. The Committee of Ministers may 
suspend the right of representation on the Commit- 
tee and on the Consultative Assembly of a Member, 
which has failed to fulfil its financial obligation, dur- 
ing such period as the obligation remains unfulfilled. 

Chapter III. General 

Article 10. The organs of the Council of Europe 
are: 

(i) The Committee of Ministers; 
(ii) The Consultative Assembly. 

Both these organs shall be served by the Secretariat 
of the Council of Europe. 

Article 11. The seat of the Council of Europe 
is at Strasbourg. 

Article 12. The official languages of the Coun- 
cil of Europe are English and French. The rules of 
procedure of the Committee of Ministers and of the 
Consultative Assembly shall determine in what 
circumstances and under what conditions other lan- 
guages may be used. 

Chapter IV. Committee of Ministers 

Article 13. The Committee of Ministers is the 
organ which acts on behalf of the Council of Europe 
in accordance with Articles IS and 16. 

Article 14. Each Member shall be entitled to 



61 

one representative on the Committee of Ministers 
and each representative shall be entitled to one vote. 
Representatives on the Committee shall be the Min- 
isters for Foreign Affairs. When a Minister for For- 
eign Affairs is unable to be present or in other circum- 
stances where it may be desirable, an alternate may 
be nominated to act for him, who shall, whenever 
possible, be a member of his Government. 

Article IS. (a) On the recommendation of the 
Consultative Assembly or on its own initiative, the 
Committee of Ministers shall consider the action re- 
quired to further the aim of the Council of Europe, 
including the conclusion of conventions or agree- 
ments and the adoption by Governments of a com- 
mon policy with regard to particular matters. Its 
conclusions shall be communicated to Members by 
the Secretary-General. 

(b) In appropriate cases, the conclusions of the 
Committee may take the form of recommendations 
to the Governments of Members, and the Committee 
may request the Government of Members to inform 
it of the action taken by them with regard to such 
recommendations . 

Article 16. The Committee of Ministers shall, 
subject to the provisions of Articles 24, 28, 30, 32, 
33 and 35, relating to the powers of the Consultative 
Assembly, decide with binding effect all matters 
relating to the internal organisation and arrange- 
ments of the Council of Europe. For this purpose 
the Committee of Ministers shall adopt such financial 
and administrative regulations as may be necessary. 

Article 17. The Committee of Ministers may 
set up advisory and technical committees or commis- 
sions for such specific purposes as it may deem 
desirable. 

Article 18. The Committee of Ministers shall 



62 

adopt its rules of procedure which shall determine 
amongst other things: — 
(i) The quorum; 
(ii) The method of appointment and term of 

office of its President; 
(iii) The procedure for the admission of items to 
its agenda, including the giving of notice 
of proposals for resolutions; and 
(iv) The notifications required for the nomina- 
tion of alternates under Article 14. 
Article 19. At each session of the Consultative 
Assembly the Committee of Ministers shall furnish 
the Assembly with statements of its activities, accom- 
panied by appropriate documentation. 

Article 20. (a) Resolutions of the Committee of 
Ministers relating to the following important mat- 
ters, namely: 

(i) Recommendations under Article IS (b); 
(ii) Questions under Article 19; 
(iii) Questions under Article 21 (a) (i) and (b); 
(iv) Questions under Article 33; 
(v) Recommendations for the amendment of 

Articles 1 (d), 7, IS, 20 and 22; and 
(vi) Any other question which the Committee 
may, by a resolution passed under (d) be- 
low, decide should be subject to a unani- 
mous vote on account of its importance 
require the unanimous vote of the representatives 
casting a vote, and of a majority of the representa- 
tives entitled to sit on the Committee. 

(b) Questions arising under the rules of procedure 
or under the financial and administrative regulations 
may be decided by a simple majority vote of the 
representatives entitled to sit on the Committee. 

(c) Resolutions of the Committee under Articles 
4 and S require a two-thirds majority of all the 
representatives entitled to sit on the Committee. 



63 

(d) All other resolutions of the Committee, includ- 
ing the adoption of the Budget, of rules of procedure 
and of financial and administrative regulations , recom- 
mendations for the amendment of articles of this 
Statute, other than those mentioned in paragraph 
(a) (v) above, and deciding in case of doubt which 
paragraph of this Article applies, require a two-thirds 
majority of the representatives casting a vote and of 
a majority of the representatives entitled to sit on 
the Committee. 

Article 21. (a) Unless the Committee decides 
otherwise, meetings of the Committee of Ministers 
shall be held — 

(i) In private, and 
(ii) At the seat of the Council. 

(b) The Committee shall determine what informa- 
tion shall be published regarding the conclusions and 
discussions of a meeting held in private. 

(c) The Committee shall meet before and during 
the beginning of every session of the Consultative 
Assembly and at such other times as it may decide. 

Chapter V. The Consultative Assembly 

Article 22. The Consultative Assembly is the 
deliberative organ of the Council of Europe. It shall 
debate matters within its competence under this 
Statute and present its conclusions, in the form of 
recommendations, to the Committee of Ministers. 

Article 23 . (a) The Consultative Assembly shall 
discuss, and may make recommendations upon, any 
matter within the aim and scope of the Council of 
Europe as defined in Chapter 1, which (i) is referred 
to it by the Committee of Ministers with a request 
for its opinion, or (ii) has been approved by the 
Committee for inclusion in the Agenda of the Assem- 
bly on the proposal of the latter. 



64 

(b) In taking decisions under (a), the Committee 
shall have regard to the work of other European 
inter-governmental organisations to which some or 
all of the Members of the Council are parties. 

(c) The President of the Assembly shall decide, in 
case of doubt, whether any question raised in the 
course of the Session is within the Agenda of the 
Assembly approved under (a) above. 

Article 24. The Consultative Assembly may, 
with due regard to the provisions of Article 38 (d), 
establish committees or commissions to consider and 
report to it on any matter which falls within its com- 
petence under Article 23, to examine and prepare 
questions on its agenda and to advise on all matters 
of procedure. 

Article 25 . (a) The Consultative Assembly shall 
consist of representatives of each Member appointed 
in such a manner as the Government of that Member 
shall decide. Each representative must be a national 
of the Member whom he represents, but shall not at 
the same time be a member of the Committee of 
Ministers. 

(b) No representative shall be deprived of his posi- 
tion as such during a session of the Assembly without 
the agreement of the Assembly. 

(c) Each representative may have a substitute who 
may, in the absence of the representative, sit, speak 
and vote in his place. The provisions of paragraph 
(a) above apply to the appointment of substitutes. 

Article 26. The following States, on becoming 
Members, shall be entitled to the number of repre- 
sentatives given below: — 

Belgium 6 Luxembourg 3 

Denmark 4 Netherlands 6 

France 18 Norway 4 

Irish Republic 4 Sweden 6 

Italy 18 United Kingdom 18 

Article 27. The conditions under which the 



65 

Committee of Ministers collectively may be repre- 
sented in the debates of the Consultative Assembly, 
or individual representatives on the Committee may 
address the Assembly, shall be determined by such 
rules of procedure on this subject as may be drawn 
up by the Committee after consultation with the 
Assembly. 

Article 28. (a) The Consultative Assembly shall 
adopt its rules of procedure and shall elect from its 
members its President, who shall remain in office 
until the next ordinary session. 

(b) The President shall control the proceedings but 
shall not take part in the debate or vote. The sub- 
stitute of the representative who is President may 
sit, speak and vote in his place. 

(c) The rules of procedure shall determine inter alia: 

(i) The quorum; 
(ii) The manner of the election and terms of 

office of the President and other officers; 
(hi) The manner in which the agenda shall be 
drawn up and be communicated to repre- 
sentatives; and 
(iv) The time and manner in which the names of 
representatives and their substitutes shall 
be notified. 
Article 29. Subject to the provisions of Article 
30, all resolutions of the Consultative Assembly, 
including resolutions: 

(i) Embodying recommendations to the Com- 
mittee of Ministers; 
(ii) Proposing to the Committee matters for 

discussion in the Assembly; 
(iii) Establishing committees or commissions; 
(iv) Determining the date of commencement of 

its sessions; 
(v) Determining what majority is required for 
resolutions in cases not covered by (i) to 



66 

(iv) above or determining cases of doubt as 

to what majority is required, 
shall require a two-thirds majority of the representa- 
tives casting a vote. 

Article 30. On matters relating to its internal 
procedure, which includes the election of officers, the 
nomination of persons to serve on committees and 
commissions and the adoption of rules of procedure, 
resolutions of the Consultative Assembly shall be 
carried by such majorities as the Assembly may de- 
termine in accordance with Article 29 (v). 

Article 31. Debates on proposals to be made 
to the Committee of Ministers that a matter should 
be placed on the Agenda of the Consultative Assem- 
bly shall be confined to an indication of the proposed 
subject-matter and the reasons for and against its 
inclusion in the Agenda. 

Article 32. The Consultative Assembly shall 
meet in ordinary session once a year, the date and 
duration of which shall be determined by the Assem- 
bly so as to avoid as far as possible overlapping with 
parliamentary sessions of Members and with sessions 
of the General Assembly of the United Nations. In 
no circumstances shall the duration of an ordinary 
session exceed one month unless both the Assembly 
and the Committee of Ministers concur. 

Article 33. Ordinary sessions of the Consulta- 
tive Assembly shall be held at the seat of the Council 
unless both the Assembly and the Committee of Min- 
isters concur that it should be held elsewhere. 

Article 34. The Committee of Ministers may 
convoke an extraordinary session of the Consulta- 
tive Assembly at such time and place as the Com- 
mittee, with the concurrence of the President of the 
Assembly, shall decide. 

Article 35. Unless the Consultative Assembly 



67 

decides otherwise, its debates shall be conducted in 
public. 

Chapter VI. The Secretariat 

Article 36. (a) The Secretariat shall consist of 
a Secretary-General, a Deputy Secretary-General 
and such other staff as may be required. 

(b) The Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary- 
General shall be appointed by the Consultative As- 
sembly on the recommendation of the Committee 
of Ministers. 

(c) The remaining staff of the Secretariat shall be 
appointed by the Secretary-General, in accordance 
with the administrative regulations. 

(d) No member of the Secretariat shall hold any 
salaried office from any Government or be a member 
of the Consultative Assembly or of any national 
legislature or engage in any occupation incompatible 
with his duties. 

(e) Every member of the staff of the Secretariat 
shall make a solemn declaration affirming that his 
duty is to the Council of Europe and that he will 
perform his duties conscientiously, uninfluenced by 
any national considerations, and that he will not 
seek or receive instructions in connexion with the 
performance of his duties from any Government or 
any authority external to the Council and will refrain 
from any action which might reflect on his position 
as an international official responsible only to the 
Council. In the case of the Secretary-General and 
the Deputy Secretary-General this declaration shall 
be made before the Committee, and in the case of 
all other members of the staff, before the Secretary- 
General. 

(/) Every Member shall respect the exclusively 
international character of the responsibilities of the 
Secretary-General and the staff of the Secretariat and 



68 

not seek to influence them in the discharge of their 
responsibilities. 

Article 37. (a) The Secretariat shall be located 
at the seat of the Council. 

(b) The Secretary-General is responsible to the 
Committee of Ministers for the work of the Secre- 
tariat. Amongst other things, he shall, subject to 
Article 38 (d), provide such secretarial and other 
assistance as the Consultative Assembly may require. 

Chapter VII. Finance 

Article 38. (a) Each Member shall bear the 
expenses of its own representation in the Committee 
of Ministers and in the Consultative Assembly. 

(b) The expenses of the Secretariat and all other 
common expenses shall be shared between all Mem- 
bers in such proportions as shall be determined by 
the Committee on the basis of the population of 
Members. 

The contributions of an Associate Member shall be 
determined by the Committee. 

(c) In accordance with the financial regulations, the 
budget of the Council shall be submitted annually by 
the Secretary-General for adoption by the Committee. 

(d) The Secretary-General shall refer to the Com- 
mittee requests from the Assembly which involve 
expenditure exceeding the amount already allocated 
in the Budget for the Assembly and its activities. 

Article 39. The Secretary-General shall each 
year notify the Government of each Member of the 
amount of its contribution and each Member shall 
pay to the Secretary-General the amount of its con- 
tribution, which shall be deemed to be due on the 
date of its notification, not later than six months 
after that date. 



69 



Chapter VIII. Privileges and Immunities 

Article 40. {a) The Council of Europe, repre- 
sentatives of Members and the Secretariat shall 
enjoy in the territories of its Members such privileges 
and immunities as are reasonably necessary for the 
fulfilment of their functions. These immunities shall 
include immunity for all representatives in the Con- 
sultative Assembly from arrest and all legal proceed- 
ings in the territories of all Members, in respect of 
words spoken and votes cast in the debates of the 
Assembly or its committees or commissions. 

(b) The Members undertake as soon as possible to 
enter into an agreement for the purpose of fulfilling 
the provisions of paragraph Qz) above. For this pur- 
pose the Committee of Ministers shall recommend to 
the Governments of Members the acceptance of an 
Agreement defining the privileges and immunities to 
be granted in the territories of all Members. In 
addition a special Agreement shall be concluded with 
the Government of the French Republic defining the 
privileges and immunities which the Council shall 
enjoy at its seat. 

Chapter IX. Amendments 

Article 41. (a) Proposals for the amendment of 
this Statute may be made in the Committee of Minis- 
ters or, in the conditions provided for in Article 23, 
in the Consultative Assembly. 

(b) The Committee shall recommend and cause to 
be embodied in a Protocol those amendments which 
it considers to be desirable. 

(c) An amending Protocol shall come into force 
when it has been signed and ratified on behalf of two- 
thirds of the Members. 

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preced- 
ing paragraphs of this Article, amendments to 



70 

Articles 23-35, 38 and 39 which have been approved by 
the Committee and by the Assembly, shall come into 
force on the date of the certificate of the Secretary- 
General, transmitted to the Governments of Mem- 
bers, certifying that they have been so approved. 
This paragraph shall not operate until the conclusion 
of the second ordinary session of the Assembly. 

Chapter X. Final Provisions 

Article 42. (a) This Statute shall be ratified. 
Ratifications shall be deposited with the Govern- 
ment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland. 

(b) The present Statute shall come into force as 
soon as seven instruments of ratification have been 
deposited. The Government of the United Kingdom 
shall transmit to all signatory Governments a certi- 
ficate declaring that the Statute has entered into 
force, and giving the names of the Members of the 
Council of Europe on that date. 

(c) Thereafter each other signatory shall become a 
party to this Statute as from the date of the deposit 
of its instrument of ratification. 

In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly 
authorised thereto, have signed the present Statute. 

Done at London, this 5th day of May, 1949, in 
English and French, both texts being equally au- 
thentic, in a single copy which shall remain deposited 
in the archives of the Government of the United 
Kingdom which shall transmit certified copies to 
the other signatory Governments. 



II. TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS 

1. International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 
Indictment No. 1, 29 April 1946 (Excerpts) 

Note. On 19 January 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers 
issued a proclamation establishing an International Military Tribunal for the 
Far East, and approved a Charter of the Tribunal. The texts of the procla- 
mation and of the Charter as amended on 26 April 1946 were published in 
Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1946-47, pp. 317, 319. 
Nine members of the Tribunal were appointed by the Supreme Commander on 
15 February 1946, "from the names submitted by the signatories to the Instru- 
ment of Surrender" of 2 September 1945 (Naval War College, International Law 
Documents, 1946-47, p. 139); and two additional members from India and the 
Philippines were later appointed. 

Each of the Governments of the States whose nationals were members of 
the Tribunal appointed counsel. An indictment signed by these counsel was 
served on twenty-eight defendants and lodged with the Tribunal on 29 April 
1946, in which these "nations" accused the defendants of crimes against peace, 
war crimes, crimes against humanity, and common plans or conspiracies to 
commit those crimes, as defined in the Charter of the Tribunal. Only those 
counts on which defendants were convicted are reproduced here. 

(Department of State Publications 2613.) 

The United States of America, the Republic of 
China, the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics, the Commonwealth of 
Australia, Canada, the Republic of France, 
the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zea- 
land, India, and the Commonwealth of the 
Philippines. 

against 

Araki, Sadao; Dohihara, Kenji; Hashimoto, Kin- 
goro; Hata, Shunroku; Hiranuma, Kiichiro; 
Hirota, Koki; Hoshino, Naoki; Itagaki, Sei- 
shiro; Kaya, Okinori; Kido, Koichi; Kimura, 
Heitaro; Koiso, Kuniaki; Matsui, Iwane; Mat- 
suoka, Yosuke; Minami, Jiro; Muto, Akira; 
Nagano, Osami; Oka, Takasumi; Okawa, Shumei; 

. 71 



72 

Oshima, Hiroshi; Sato, Kenryo; Shigemitsu, 
Mamoru; Shimada, Shigetaro; Shiratori, Toshio; 
Suzuki, Teiichi; Togo, Shigenori; Tojo, Hideki; 
Umezu, Yoshijiro. 

Accused. 

group one: crimes against peace 

The following counts charge Crimes against Peace, 
being acts for which it is charged that each of the 
persons named are individually responsible in ac- 
cordance with Article 5 and particularly Article 5 (a) 
of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal 
for the Far East, and in accordance with Interna- 
tional Law. 

Count 1 

All the accused together with other persons, be- 
tween the 1st January, 1928, and the 2nd September, 
1945, participated as leaders, organisers, instigators, 
or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a 
common plan or conspiracy, and are responsible for 
all acts performed by any person in execution of 
such plan. 

The object of such plan or conspiracy was that 
Japan should secure the military, naval, political and 
economic domination of East Asia and of the Pacific 
and Indian Oceans, and of all countries bordering 
thereon and islands therein, and for that purpose 
they conspired that Japan should alone or in com- 
bination with other countries having similar objects, 
or who could be induced or coerced to join therein, 
wage declared or undeclared war or wars of aggres- 
sion, and war or wars in violation of international 
law, treaties, agreements and assurances, against 
any country or countries which might oppose that 
purpose. . . . 



73 

Count 27 

All the accused, between the 18th September, 1931, 
and the 2nd September, 1945, waged a war of ag- 
gression and a war in violation of international law, 
treaties, agreements and assurances, against the 
Republic of China. . . . 

Count 29 

All the accused, between the 7th December, 1941, 
and the 2nd September, 1945, waged a war of ag- 
gression and a war in violation of international law, 
treaties, agreements and assurances, against the 
United States of America. . . . 

Count 31 

All the accused, between the 7th December, 1941, 
and the 2nd September, 1945, waged a war of aggres- 
sion and a war in violation of international law, 
treaties, agreements and assurances, against the 
British Commonwealth of Nations. . . . 

Count 32 

All the accused, between the 7th December, 1941, 
and the 2nd September, 1945, waged a war of aggres- 
sion and a war in violation of international law, 
treaties, agreements and assurances, against the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands. . . . 

Count 33 

The accused AR AKI , DOHIHARA, HIRANUMA, 
HIROTA, HOSHINO, ITAGAKI, KIDO, MAT- 
SUOKA, MUTO, NAGANO, SHIGEMITSU and 
TOJO, on and after the 22nd September, 1940, 
waged a war of aggression and a war in violation of 
international law, treaties, agreements and assur- 
ances, against the Republic of France. . . . 

855422—50 6 



74 

Count 35 

The same accused as in Count 25, during the sum- 
mer of 1938, waged a war of aggression and a war in 
violation of international law, treaties, agreements 
and assurances, against the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics. . . . 

Count 36 

The same accused as in Count 26, during the sum- 
mer of 1939, waged a war of aggression and a war in 
violation of international law, treaties, agreements 
and assurances against the Mongolian People's Re- 
public and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. . . . 

group three: other conventional war 
crimes and crimes against humanity 

The following Counts charge conventional War 
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, being acts 
for which it is charged that each of the persons named 
are individually responsible, in accordance with Arti- 
cle 5 and particularly Article 5 (b) and (c) of the 
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for 
the Far East, and in accordance with International 
Law. 

Count 54 

The accused Dohihara, Hata, Hoshino, Itagaki, 
Kaya, Kido, Kimura, Koiso, Muto, Nagano, Oka, 
Oshima, Sato, Shigemitsu, Shimada, Suzuki, Togo, 
Tofb and Umezu, between the 7th December, 1941, 
and the 2nd September, 1945, ordered, authorised 
and permitted the commanders-in-chief and other 
persons mentioned in Count 53 to commit the 



1 Araki, Dohihara, Hata, Hiranuma, Hirota, Hoshino, Itagaki, Kido, Mat- 
suoka, Matsui, Shigemitsu, Suzuki, and Togo. 

2 Araki, Dohihara, Hata, Hiranuma, Itagaki, Kido, Koiso, Matsui, Mat- 
gUoka, Muto, Suzuki, Togo, Tojo, and Umezu. 



75 

offences therein mentioned and thereby violated the 
laws of War. 

In the case of the Republic of China the said or- 
ders, authorizations and permissions were given in a 
period beginning on the 18th September, 1931, and 
the following accused were responsible for the same 
in addition to those named above: Araki, Hashimoto, 
Hiranuma, Hirota, Matsui, Matsuoka, Minami. 

Count 55 

The accused Dohihara, Hata, Hoshino, Itagaki, 
Kaya, Kido, Kimura, Koiso, Muto, Nagano, Oka, 
Oshima, Sato, Shigemitsu, Shimada, Suzuki, Togo, 
Tojo and Umezu, between the 7th December, 1941, 
and the 2nd September, 1945, being by virtue of 
their respective offices responsible for securing the 
observance of the said Conventions and assurances 
and the Laws and Customs of War in respect of the 
armed forces in the countries hereinafter named and 
in respect of many thousands of prisoners of war and 
civilians then in the power of Japan belonging to 
the United States of America, the British Common- 
wealth of Nations, the Republic of France, the King- 
dom of the Netherlands, the Commonwealth of the 
Philippines, the Republic of China, the Republic of 
Portugal and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 
deliberately and recklessly disregarded their legal 
duty to take adequate steps to secure the observance 
and prevent breaches thereof, and thereby violated 
the laws of war. 

In the case of the Republic of China, the said 
offence began on the 18th September, 1931, and the 
following accused were responsible for the same in 
addition to those named above: Araki, Hashimoto, 
Hiranuma, Hirota, Matsui, Matsuoka, Minami. 



76 

2. International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 
Judgment, 4-12 November 1948 (Excerpts) 

Note. The trial of those accused in Indictment No. 1 on 3 May 1946 
Pleas of "not guilty" were entered for all the defendants. Evidence was heard 
between 3 June 1946 and 10 February 1948; 419 witnesses testified in court, and 
4, 336 exhibits and depositions and affidavits of 779 witnesses were admitted 
in evidence. Defendants Matsuoka and Nagano died during the course of the 
trial, and the indictment of the defendant Okawa was suspended by reason of 
his insanity. The judgment of the Tribunal was read by the President of the 
Tribunal, Sir William Webb, from 4 to 12 November 1948. The Indian Mem- 
ber of the Tribunal dissented, the French and Netherlands Members dissented 
in part, the Philippine Member wrote a separate concurring opinion, and the 
President filed a separate statement of reasons. The Tribunal's judgment was 
published at Tokyo in six fascicules with a total of 1,218 pages, and an annex 
of 130 pages. 

PART A 

Chapter 1. Establishment and Proceedings of 

the Tribunal 

[The Tribunal summarized the instruments under which it was established 
and the course of its proceedings.] 



Chapter II. The Law 

(a) Jurisdiction of the Tribunal 

In our opinion the law of the Charter is decisive 
and binding on the Tribunal. This is a special tri- 
bunal set up by the Supreme Commander under 
authority conferred on him by the Allied Powers. 
It derives its jurisdiction from the Charter. In this 
trial its members have no jurisdiction except such as 
is to be found in the Charter. The Order of the Su- 
preme Commander, which appointed the members 
of the Tribunal, states: "The responsibilities, powers, 
and duties of the members of the Tribunal are set 
forth in the Charter thereof. . ." In the result, the 
members of the Tribunal, being otherwise wholly 
without power in respect to the trial of the accused, 
have been empowered by the documents, which con- 
stituted the Tribunal and appointed them as 



77 

members, to try the accused but subject always to 
the duty and responsibility of applying to the trial 
the law set forth in the Charter. 

The foregoing expression of opinion is not to be 
taken as supporting the view, if such view be held, 
that the Allied Powers or any victor nations have the 
right under international law in providing for the 
trial and punishment of war criminals to enact or 
promulgate laws or vest in their tribunals powers in 
conflicts with recognised international law or rules or 
principles thereof. In the exercise of their right to 
create tribunals for such a purpose and in conferring 
powers upon such tribunals belligerent powers may 
act only within the limits of international law. 

The substantial grounds of the defence challenge 
to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and adjudi- 
cate upon the charges contained in the Indictment 
are the following: 

(1) The Allied Powers acting through the Supreme 
Commander have no authority to include in the 
Charter of the Tribunal and to designate as justici- 
able "Crimes against Peace" (Article 5 (a)); 

(2) Aggressive war is not per se illegal and the Pact 
of Paris of 1928 renouncing war as an instrument of 
national policy does not enlarge the meaning of war 
crimes nor constitute war a crime; 

(3) War is the act of a nation for which there is 
no individual responsibility under international law; 

(4) The provisions of the Charter are "ex post 
facto" legislation and therefore illegal; 

(5) The Instrument of Surrender which provides 
that the Declaration of Potsdam will be given effect 
imposes the condition that Conventional War Crimes 
as recognised by international law at the date of the 
Declaration (26 July, 1945) would be the only crimes 
prosecuted; 

(6) Killings in the course of belligerent operations 



78 

except in so far as they constitute violations of the 
rules of warfare or the laws and customs of war are 
the normal incidents of war and are not murder; 

(7) Several of the accused being prisoners of war 
are triable by court martial as provided by the 
Geneva Convention 1929 and not by this Tribunal. 

Since the law of the Charter is decisive and binding 
upon it this Tribunal is formally bound to reject 
the first four of the above seven contentions advanced 
for the Defence but in view of the great importance 
of the questions of law involved the Tribunal will 
record its opinion on these questions. 

After this Tribunal had in May 1946 dismissed 
the defence motions and upheld the validity of its 
Charter and its jurisdiction thereunder, stating that 
the reasons for this decision would be given later, the 
International Military Tribunal sitting at Nurem- 
berg delivered its verdicts on the first of October 
1946. That Tribunal expressed inter alia the follow- 
ing opinions: 

The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part 
of the victorious nations but is the expression of internationa 1 
law existing at the time of its creation; 

The question is what was the legal effect of this pact (Pact of 
Paris August 27, 1928)? The Nations who signed the pact or 
adhered to it unconditionally condemned recourse to war for 
the future as an instrument of policy and expressly renounced it. 
After the signing of the pact any nation resorting to war as an 
instrument of national policy breaks the pact. In the opinion 
of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instru- 
ment of national policy necessarily involves the proposition 
that such a war is illegal in international law; and that those who 
plan and wage such a war, with its inevitable and terrible con- 
sequences, are committing a crime in so doing. 

The principle of international law which under certain circum- 
stances protects the representative of a state cannot be applied 
to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. 
The authors of these acts cannot shelter themselves behind their 
official position in order to be freed from punishment in ap- 
propriate proceedings. 



79 

The maxim "nullum crimen sine lege" is not a limitation of 
sovereignty but is in general a principle of justice. To assert 
that it is unjust to punish those who in defiance of treaties and 
assurances have attacked neighboring states without warning 
is obviously untrue for in such circumstances the attacker must 
know that he is doing wrong, and so far from it being unjust to 
punish him, it would be unjust if his wrong were allowed to go 
unpunished. 

The Charter specifically provides . . . "the fact that a de- 
fendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a 
superior shall not free him from responsibility but may be 
considered in mitigation of punishment." This provision is in 
conformity with the laws of all nations . . . The true test which 
is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations 
is not the existence of the order but whether moral choice was 
in fact possible. 

With the foregoing opinions of the Nuremberg 
Tribunal and the reasoning by which they are reached 
this Tribunal is in complete accord. They embody 
complete answers to the first four of the grounds 
urged by the defence as set forth above. In view of 
the fact that in all material respects the Charters of 
this Tribunal and the Nuremberg Tribunal are iden- 
tical, this Tribunal prefers to express its unqualified 
adherence to the relevant opinions of the Nuremberg 
Tribunal rather than by reasoning the matters anew 
in somewhat different language to open the door to 
controversy by way of conflicting interpretations of 
the two statements of opinions. 

The fifth ground of the Defence challenge to the 
Tribunal's jurisdiction is that under the Instrument 
of Surrender and the Declaration of Potsdam the 
only crimes for which it was contemplated that pro- 
ceedings would be taken, being the only war crimes 
recognized by international law at the date of the 
Declaration of Potsdam, are Conventional War 
Crimes as mentioned in Article 5 (b) of the Charter. 

Aggressive war was a crime at international law 
long prior to the date of the Declaration of Potsdam, 



80 

and there is no ground for the limited interpretation 
of the Charter which the defense seek to give it. 

A special argument was advanced that in any 
event the Japanese Government, when they agreed 
to accept the terms of the Instrument of Surrender, 
did not in fact understand that those Japanese who 
were alleged to be responsible for the war would be 
prosecuted. 

There is no basis in fact for this argument. It has 
been established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal 
that before the signature of the Instrument of Surren- 
der the point in question had been considered by the 
Japanese Government and the then members of the 
Government, who advised the acceptance of the 
terms of the Instrument of Surrender, anticipated 
that those alleged to be responsible for the war would 
be put on trial. As early as the 10th of August, 
1945, three weeks before the signing of the Instru- 
ment of Surrender, the Emperor said to the accused 
Kido, "I could not bear the sight ... of those re- 
sponsible for the war being punished . . . but I think 
now is the time to bear the unbearable." 

The sixth contention for the Defence; namely, that 
relating to the charges which allege the commission 
of murder will be discussed at a later point. 

The seventh of these contentions is made on behalf 
of the four accused who surrendered as prisoners of 
war — Itagaki, Kimura, Muto and Sato. The sub- 
mission made on their behalf is that they, being 
former members of the armed forces of Japan and 
prisoners of war, are triable as such by court martial 
under the articles of the Geneva Convention of 1929 
relating to prisoners of war, particularly Articles 60 
and 63, and not by a tribunal constituted otherwise 
than under that Convention. This very point was 
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of 
America in the Yamashita case. The late Chief 



81 

Justice Stone, delivering the judgment for the ma- 
jority of the Court said: "We think it clear from the 
context of these recited provisions that Part 3 and 
Article 63, which it contains, apply only to judicial 
proceedings directed against a prisoner of war for 
offences committed while a prisoner of war. Section 
V gives no indication that this part was designated to 
deal with offences other than those referred to in 
Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter 3." With that conclusion 
and the reasoning by which it is reached the Tribunal 
respectfully agrees. 

The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal 
wholly fails. 

(b) Responsibility for War Crimes 
Against Prisoners 

Prisoners taken in war and civilian internees are 
in the power of the Government which captures them. 
This was not always the case. For the last two cen- 
turies, however, this position has been recognised 
and the customary law to this effect was formally 
embodied in the Hague Convention No. IV in 1907 
and repeated in the Geneva Prisoner of War Conven- 
tion of 1929. Responsibility for the care of prisoners 
of war and of civilian internees (all of whom we will 
refer to as "prisoners") rests therefore with the Gov- 
ernment having them in possession. This responsi- 
bility is not limited to the duty of mere maintenance 
but extends to the prevention of mistreatment. In 
particular, acts of inhumanity to prisoners which are 
forbidden by the customary law of nations as well as 
by conventions are to be prevented by the Govern- 
ment having responsibility for the prisoners. 

In the discharge of these duties to prisoners Gov- 
ernments must have resort to persons. Indeed the 
Governments responsible, in this sense, are those 
persons who direct and control the functions of 



82 

Government. In this case and in the above regard 
we are concerned with the members of the Japanese 
Cabinet. The duty to prisoners is not a meaningless 
obligation cast upon a political abstraction. It is a 
specific duty to be performed in the first case by those 
persons who constitute the Government. In the 
multitude of duties and tasks involved in modern 
government there is of necessity an elaborate system 
of subdivision and delegation of duties. In the case 
of the duty of Governments to prisoners held by them 
in time of war those persons who constitute the Gov- 
ernment have the principal and continuing responsi- 
bility for their prisoners, even though they delegate 
the duties of maintenance and protection to others. 
In general the responsibility for prisoners held by 
Japan may be stated to have rested upon: 

(1) Members of the Government; 

(2) Military or Naval Officers in command of 
formations having prisoners in their possession; 

(3) Officials in those departments which were 
concerned with the well-being of prisoners; 

(4) Officials, whether civilian, military, or 
naval, having direct and immediate control of 
prisoners. 

It is the duty of all those on whom responsibility 
rests to secure proper treatment of prisoners and to 
prevent their ill-treatment by establishing and se- 
curing the continuous and efficient working of a 
system appropriate for these purposes. Such per- 
sons fail in this duty and become responsible for 
ill-treatment of prisoners if: 

(1) They fail to establish such a system. 

(2) If having established such a system, they 
fail to secure its continued and efficient working. 

Each of such persons has a duty to ascertain that 
the system is working and if he neglects to do so he 
is responsible. He does not discharge his duty by 



83 

merely instituting an appropriate system and there- 
after neglecting to learn of its application. An Army 
Commander or a Minister of War, for example, must 
be at the same pains to ensure obedience to his orders 
in this respect as he would in respect of other orders 
he has issued on matters of the first importance. 

Nevertheless, such persons are not responsible if a 
proper system and its continuous efficient functioning 
be provided for and conventional war crimes be com- 
mitted unless: 

(1) They had knowledge that such crimes were 
being committed, and having such knowledge 
they failed to take such steps as were within 
their power to prevent the commission of such 
crimes in the future, or 

(2) They are at fault in having failed to ac- 
quire such knowledge. 

If, such a person had, or should, but for negligence 
or supineness, have had such knowledge he is not 
excused for inaction if his Office required or permitted 
him to take any action to prevent such crimes. On 
the other hand it is not enough for the exculpation of 
a person, otherwise responsible, for him to show that 
he accepted assurances from others more directly 
associated with the control of the prisoners if having 
regard to the position of those others, to the fre- 
quency of reports of such crimes, or to any other 
circumstances he should have been put upon further 
enquiry as to whether those assurances were true or 
untrue. That crimes are notorious, numerous and 
widespread as to time and place are matters to be 
considered in imputing knowledge. 

A member of a Cabinet which collectively, as one 
of the principal organs of the Government, is re- 
sponsible for the care of prisoners is not absolved 
from responsibility if, having knowledge of the 



84 

commission of the crimes in the sense already dis- 
cussed, and omitting or failing to secure the taking of 
measures to prevent the commission of such crimes in 
the future, he elects to continue as a member of the 
Cabinet. This is the position even though the De- 
partment of which he has the charge is not directly 
concerned with the care of prisoners. A Cabinet 
member may resign. If he has knowledge of ill- 
treatment of prisoners, is powerless to prevent future 
ill-treatment, but elects to remain in the Cabinet 
thereby continuing to participate in its collective 
responsibility for protection of prisoners he willingly 
assumes responsibility for any ill-treatment in the 
future. 

Army or Navy Commanders can, by order, secure 
proper treatment and prevent ill-treatment of prison- 
ers. So can Ministers of War and of the Navy. If 
crimes are committed against prisoners under their 
control, of the likely occurrence of which they had, 
or should have had knowledge in advance, they are 
responsible for those crimes. If, for example, it be 
shown that within the units under his command con- 
ventional war crimes have been committed of which 
he knew or should have known, a commander who 
takes no adequate steps to prevent the occurrence of 
such crimes in the future will be responsible for such 
future crimes. 

Departmental Officials having knowledge of ill- 
treatment of prisoners are not responsible by reason 
of their failure to resign; but if their functions in- 
cluded the administration of the system of protection 
of prisoners and if they had or should have had 
knowledge of crimes and did nothing effective, to the 
extent of their powers, to prevent their occurrence in 
the future then they are responsible for such future 
crimes. 



85 



(c) The Indictment 

[The Tribunal gave its reasons for abstaining from 
consideration of certain counts in the indictment. 
Counts 6 to 17, which charged the planning and 
preparation of wars of aggression and wars in viola- 
tion of international law, treaties, agreements and 
assurances, were not considered because the Tribunal 
found it unnecessary in respect to those defendants 
who were found guilty of conspiracy (charged in 
Counts 1 to 5) to enter convictions also for planning 
and preparing. Counts 18 to 26, which charged the 
initiation of a war of aggression and a war in violation 
of international law, treaties, agreements and assur- 
ances, were not considered because the offense of 
initiating such wars was included in the offense of 
waging them, alleged in Counts 27 to 36. Counts 39 
to 43 and 44 to 52, which charged the unlawful kill- 
ing and murdering of various persons by unlawfully 
ordering, causing and permitting the armed forces of 
Japan to make certain attacks, were not considered 
because these murders were part of the offenses of un- 
lawfully waging war alleged in Counts 27 to 36. 

[The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under the Charter to consider Counts 
37, 38, 44 and 52, which charged conspiracy to murder and to commit crimes 
in breach of the laws of war. Article 5 (a) of the Charter gave jurisdiction over 
conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, but Article 5 (b) and (c) were held 
not to give jurisdiction of conspiracies to commit conventional war crimes and 
crimes against humanity; a reference in Article 5 (c) to "a common plan or con- 
spiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes" was held to refer exclusively to 
conspiracies to commit crimes against peace.] 

Chapter III. Obligations Assumed 
and Rights Acquired by Japan 

[The Tribunal made a detailed study of the international rights and obligations 
of Japan relevant to the indictment. It stated that these obligations form a 
background against which the actions of the accused as should be viewed and 
judged; later in the opinion it held that wars of aggression having been proved, 
it was unnecessary to consider whether they were also wars otherwise in violation 
of international law or in violation of treaties, agreements and assurances.] 



86 



PART B 

Chapter IV. The Military Domination 
of Japan and Preparation for War 

[The Tribunal reviewed at length the internal political history of Japan between 
1 January 1928 and the conclusion of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Italy 
on 27 September 1940. The coming to power of military extremists in Japan 
was linked with external aggression in Manchuria and China.] 

Chapter V. Japanese Aggression 
Against China 

[The history of Japanese military and economic penetration in Manchuria 
and North China after 18 September 1931, and of the setting up and operation 
of puppet governments in those areas, was reviewed.] 

Chapter VI. Japanese Aggression 
Against the U.S.S.R. 

[The history of Japan's expectation, advocacy, planning and preparation of 
war against the U. S. S. R., of Japanese subversion and sabotage, and of the 
incidents at Lake Khassan in July 1938 and at Nomonhan in May 1939 was 
reviewed.] 

Chapter VII. The Pacific War 

[The history of the planning and preparation of the Pacific War between the 
end of 1938 and 7 December 1941 and of its initiation on the latter date is set 
out at length. The end of the chapter is reproduced.] 

The Japanese Note Delivered in Washington 
On December 7th 1941 

Hague Convention No. Ill 1907, relative to the 
opening of hostilities, provides by its first Article 
"The Contracting Powers recognise that hostilities 
between themselves must not commence without pre- 
vious and explicit warning in the form either of a 
reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with 
conditional declaration of war". That Convention 
was binding on Japan at all relevant times. Under 
the Charter of the Tribunal the planning, prepara- 
tion, initiation, or waging of a war in violation of 
international law, treaties, agreements or assurances 
is declared to be a crime. Many of the charges in 
the indictment are based wholly or partly upon the 



87 

view that the attacks against Britain and the United 
States were delivered without previous and explicit 
warning in the form either of a reasoned declaration 
of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declara- 
tion of war. For reasons which are discussed else- 
where we have decided that it is unnecessary to deal 
with these charges. In the case of counts of the in- 
dictment which charge conspiracy to wage aggressive 
wars and wars in violation of international law, 
treaties, agreements or assurances we have come to 
the conclusion that the charge of conspiracy to wage 
aggressive wars has been made out, that these acts 
are already criminal in the highest degree, and that 
it is unnecessary to consider whether the charge has 
also been established in respect of the list of treaties, 
agreements and assurances — including Hague Con- 
vention III — which the indictment alleges to have 
been broken. We have come to a similar conclusion 
in respect to the counts which allege the waging of 
wars of aggression and wars in violation of inter- 
national law, treaties, agreements and assurances. 
With regard to the counts of the indictment which 
charge murder in respect that wars were waged in 
violation of Hague Convention No. Ill of 1907 or of 
other treaties, we have decided that the wars in the 
course of which these killings occurred were all wars 
of aggression. The waging of such wars is the major 
crime, since it involves untold killings, suffering and 
misery. No good purpose would be served by con- 
victing any defendant of that major crime and also of 
"murder" eo nomine. Accordingly it is unnecessary 
for us to express a concluded opinion upon the exact 
extent of the obligation imposed by Hague Conven- 
tion III of 1907. It undoubtedly imposes the obliga- 
tion of giving previous and explicit warning before 
hostilities are commenced, but it does not define the 
period which must be allowed between the giving of 



88 

this warning and the commencement of hostilities. 
The position was before the framers of the Conven- 
tion and has been the subject of controversy among 
international lawyers ever since the Convention was 
made. This matter of the duration of the period 
between warning and hostilities is of course vital. If 
that period is not sufficient to allow of the transmis- 
sion of the warning to armed forces in outlying ter- 
ritories and to permit them to put themselves in a 
state of defence they may be shot down without a 
chance to defend themselves. It was the existence 
of this controversy as to the exact extent of the 
obligation imposed by the Convention which opened 
the way for TOGO to advise the Liaison Conference of 
30th November 1941 that various opinions were held 
as to the period of warning which was obligatory, 
that some thought it should be an hour and a half, 
some an hour, some half an hour. The conference 
left it to TOGO and the two Chiefs of Staff to fix the 
time of the delivery of the Note to Washington with 
the injunction that that time must not interfere with 
the success of the surprise attack. In short they 
decided to give notice that negotiations were broken 
off at so short an interval before they commenced 
hostilities as to ensure that the armed forces of Britain 
and the United States at the points of attack could 
not be warned that negotiations were broken off. 
TOGO and the naval and military men, to whom the 
task had been delivered, arranged that the Note 
should be delivered in Washington at 1.00 p.m. on 
7th December 1941. The first attack on Pearl 
Harbor was delivered at 1.20 p.m. Had all gone 
well, they would have allowed twenty minutes for 
Washington to warn the armed forces at Pearl Har- 
bor. But so anxious were they to ensure that the 
attack would be a surprise that they allowed 
no margin for contingencies. Thus, through the 



89 

decoding and transcription of the Note in the Japanese 
Embassy taking longer than had been estimated, the 
Japanese Ambassadors did not in fact arrive with the 
Note at Secretary Hull's office in Washington until 
45 minutes after the attack had been delivered. As 
for the attack on Britain at Kota Bharu, it was never 
related to the time (1.00 p.m.) fixed for the delivery 
of the Note at Washington. This fact has not been 
adequately explained in the evidence. The attack 
was delivered at 11.40 a.m. Washington time, one 
hour and twenty minutes before the Note should 
have been delivered if the Japanese Embassy at 
Washington had been able to carry out the instruc- 
tions it had received from Tokyo. 

We have thought it right to pronounce the above 
findings in fact for these matters have been the sub- 
ject of much evidence and argument but mainly in 
order to draw pointed attention to the defects of the 
Convention as framed. It permits of a narrow con- 
struction and tempts the unprincipled to try to com- 
ply with the obligation thus narrowly construed 
while at the same time ensuring that their attacks 
shall come as a surprise. With the margin thus 
reduced for the purpose of surprise no allowance can 
be made for error, mishap or negligence leading to 
delay in the delivery of the warning, and the possi- 
bility is high that the prior warning which the Con- 
vention makes obligatory will not in fact be given. 
TO JO stated that the Japanese Cabinet had this in 
view for they envisaged that the more the margin 
was reduced the greater the possibility of mishap. 

The Formal Declaration of War 

The Japanese Privy Council's Committee of 
Investigation did not begin the consideration of the 
question of making a formal declaration of war upon 
the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands 

855422—50 7 



90 

until 7.30 a.m., 8th December (Tokyo time) when 
it met in the Imperial Palace for that purpose at 
that time. SHIMADA announced that the attacks 
had been made upon Pearl Harbor and Kota Bharu; 
and a bill declaring war on the United States and 
Great Britain, which had been drafted at the resi- 
dence of HOSHINO during the night, was intro- 
duced. In answer to a question during the delibera- 
tions on the bill, TO JO declared in referring to the 
peace negotiations at Washington that, "those 
negotiations were continued only for the sake of 
strategy". TOJO also declared during the delibera- 
tions that war would not be declared on the Nether- 
lands in view of future strategic convenience; and 
that a declaration of war against Thailand would 
not be made as negotiations were in progress between 
Japan and Thailand for the conclusion of "an Alliance 
Pact". The Bill was approved; and it was decided 
to submit it to the Privy Council. The Privy Council 
met at 10.50 a.m., 8th December 1941 and passed the 
Bill. The Imperial Rescript declaring war against the 
United States and Great Britain was issued between 
11.40 and 12.00 a.m., 8th December 1941 (Washing- 
ton time, 10.40 p.m. and 11.00 p.m., 7th December) 
(London time, 2.40 a.m. and 3.00 a.m., 8th Decem- 
ber). Having been attacked, the United States of 
America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Northern Ireland declared war on Japan on 
9th December 1941 (London and Washington, 8th 
December). On the same day the Netherlands, 
Netherlands East Indies, Australia, New Zealand, 
South Africa, Free France, Canada and China also 
declared war on Japan. The next day, MUTO 
stated in a conversation with the Chief of Operations 
of the Army General Staff that the sending of Am- 
bassador Kurusu to the United States was nothing 



91 

more than a sort of camouflage of events leading to 
the opening of hostilities. 

Conclusions 

It remains to consider the contention advanced on 
behalf of the defendants that Japan's acts of aggres- 
sion against France, her attack against the Nether- 
lands, and her attacks on Great Britain and the 
United States of America were justifiable measures 
of self-defence. It is argued that these Powers took 
such measures to restrict the economy of Japan that 
she had no way of preserving the welfare and pros- 
perity of her nationals but to go to war. 

The measures which were taken by these Powers 
to restrict Japanese trade were taken in an entirely 
justifiable attempt to induce Japan to depart from a 
course of aggression on which she had long been 
embarked and upon which she had determined to 
continue. Thus the United States of America gave 
notice to terminate the Treaty of Commerce and 
Navigation with Japan on 26th July 1939 after Japan 
had seized Manchuria and a large part of the rest of 
China and when the existence of the treaty had long 
ceased to induce Japan to respect the rights and 
interests of the nationals of the United States in 
China. It was given in order that some other means 
might be tried to induce Japan to respect these rights. 
Thereafter the successive embargoes which were im- 
posed on the export of materials to Japan were 
imposed as it became clearer and clearer that Japan 
had determined to attack the territories and interests 
of the Powers. They were imposed in an attempt to 
induce Japan to depart from the aggressive policy 
on which she had determined and in order that the 
Powers might no longer supply Japan with the 
materials to wage war upon them. In some cases, 
as for example in the case of the embargo on the 



92 

export of oil from the United States of America to 
Japan, these measures were also taken in order to 
build up the supplies which were needed by the 
nations who were resisting the aggressors. The 
argument is indeed merely a repetition of Japanese 
propaganda issued at the time she was preparing for 
her wars of aggression. It is not easy to have pa- 
tience with its lengthy repetition at this date when 
documents are at length available which demonstrate 
that Japan's decision to expand to the North, to the 
West and to the South at the expense of her neighbors 
was taken long before any economic measures were 
directed against her and was never departed from. 
The evidence clearly establishes contrary to the 
contention of the defense that the acts of aggression 
against France, and the attacks on Britain, the 
United States of America and the Netherlands were 
prompted by the desire to deprive China of any aid 
in the struggle she was waging against Japan's aggres- 
sion and to secure for Japan the possessions of her 
neighbors in the South. 

The Tribunal is of opinion that the leaders of 
Japan in the years 1940 and 1941 planned to wage 
wars of aggression against France in French Indo- 
China. They had determined to demand that 
France cede to Japan the right to station troops and 
the right to air bases and naval bases in French 
Indo-China, and they had prepared to use force 
against France if their demands were not granted. 
They did make such demands upon France under 
threat that they would use force to obtain them, if 
that should prove necessary. In her then situation 
France was compelled to yield to the threat of force 
and granted the demands. 

The Tribunal also finds that a war of aggression 
was waged against the Republic of France. The 
occupation by Japanese troops of portions of French 



93 

Indo-China, which Japan had forced France to 
accept, did not remain peaceful. As the war situa- 
tion, particularly in the Philippines, turned against 
Japan the Japanese Supreme War Council in February 
1945 decided to submit the following demands to the 
Governor of French Indo-China: (1) that all French 
troops and armed police be placed under Japanese 
command, and (2) that all means of communication 
and transportation necessary for military action be 
placed under Japanese control. These demands 
were presented to the Governor of French Indo-China 
on 9th March 1945 in the form of an ultimatum 
backed by the threat of military action. He was 
given two hours to refuse or accept. He refused, and 
the Japanese proceeded to enforce their demands by 
military action. French troops and military police 
resisted the attempt to disarm them. There was 
fighting in Hanoi, Saigon, Phnom-Penh, Nhatrang, 
and towards the Northern Frontier. We quote the 
official Japanese account, "In the Northern frontiers 
the Japanese had considerable losses. The Japanese 
army proceeded to suppress French detachments in 
remote places and contingents which had fled to the 
mountains. In a month public order was re- 
established except in remote places". The Japanese 
Supreme War Council had decided that, if Japan's 
demands were refused and military action was taken 
to enforce them, "the two countries will not be con- 
sidered as at war". This Tribunal finds that 
Japanese actions at that time constituted the waging 
of a war of aggression against the Republic of France. 
The Tribunal is further of opinion that the attacks 
which Japan launched on 7th December 1941 against 
Britain, the United States of America and the Nether- 
lands were wars of aggression. They were unpro- 
voked attacks, prompted by the desire to seize the 
possessions of these nations. Whatever may be the 



94 

difficulty of stating a comprehensive definition of "a 
war of aggression", attacks made with the above 
motive cannot but be characterised as wars of 
aggression. 

It was argued on behalf of the defendants that, 
in as much as the Netherlands took the initiative 
in declaring war on Japan, the war which followed 
cannot be described as a war of aggression by Japan. 
The facts are that Japan had long planned to secure 
for herself a dominant position in the economy of the 
Netherlands East Indies by negotiation or by force of 
arms if negotiation failed. By the middle of 1941 it 
was apparent that the Netherlands would not yield to 
the Japanese demands. The leaders of Japan then 
planned and completed all the preparations for in- 
vading and seizing the Netherlands East Indies. 
The orders issued to the Japanese army for this in- 
vasion have not been recovered, but the orders issued 
to the Japanese navy on Sth November 1941 have 
been adduced in evidence. This is the Combined 
Fleet Operations Order No. 1 already referred to. 
The expected enemies are stated to be the United 
States, Great Britain and the Netherlands. The 
order states that the day for the outbreak of war will 
be given in an Imperial General Headquarters order, 
and that after 0000 hours on that day a state of war will 
exist and the Japanese forces will commence opera- 
tions according to the plan. The order of Imperial 
General Headquarters was issued on 10th November 
and it fixed 8th December (Tokyo time), 7th De- 
cember (Washington time) as the date on which a 
state of war would exist and operations would com- 
mence according to the plan. In the very first stage 
of the operations so to be commenced it is stated that 
the Southern Area Force will annihilate enemy fleets 
in the Philippines, British Malaya and the Nether- 
lands East Indies area. There is no evidence that 



95 

the above order was ever recalled or altered in respect 
to the above particulars. In these circumstances we 
find in fact that orders declaring the existence of a 
state of war and for the execution of a war of aggres- 
sion by Japan against the Netherlands were in effect 
from the early morning of 7th December 1941. The 
fact that the Netherlands, being fully apprised of the 
imminence of the attack, in self defence declared war 
against Japan on 8th December and thus officially 
recognised the existence of a state of war which had 
been begun by Japan cannot change that war from a 
war of aggression on the part of Japan into something 
other than that. In fact Japan did not declare war 
against the Netherlands until 11th January 1942 
when her troops landed in the Netherlands East 
Indies. The Imperial Conference of 1st December 
1941 decided that "Japan will open hostilities against 
the United States, Great Britain and the Nether- 
lands." Despite this decision to open hostilities 
against the Netherlands, and despite the fact that 
orders for the execution of hostilities against the 
Netherlands were already in effect, TOJO announced 
to the Privy Council on 8th December (Tokyo time) 
when they passed the Bill making a formal declaration 
of war against the United States of America and 
Britain that war would not be declared on the Nether- 
lands in view of future strategic convenience. The 
reason for this was not satisfactorily explained in 
evidence. The Tribunal is inclined to the view that 
it was dictated by the policy decided in October 1940 
for the purpose of giving as little time as possible for 
the Dutch to destroy oil wells. It has no bearing, 
however, on the fact that Japan launched a war of 
aggression against the Netherlands. 

The position of Thailand is special. The evidence 
bearing upon the entry of Japanese troops into 
Thailand is meagre to a fault. It is clear that there 



96 

was complicity between the Japanese leaders and the 
leaders of Thailand in the years 1939 and 1940 when 
Japan forced herself on France as mediator in the 
dispute as to the border between French Indo-China 
and Thailand. There is no evidence that the posi- 
tion of complicity and confidence between Japan 
and Thailand, which was then achieved, was altered 
before December 1941. It is proved that the 
Japanese leaders planned to secure a peaceful passage 
for their troops through Thailand into Malaya by 
agreement with Thailand. They did not wish to 
approach Thailand for such an agreement until the 
moment when they were about to attack Malaya, 
lest the news of the imminence of that attack should 
leak out. The Japanese troops marched through the 
territory of Thailand unopposed on 7th December 
1941 (Washington time). The only evidence the 
prosecution has adduced as to the circumstances of 
that march is (1) a statement made to the Japanese 
Privy Council between 10 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. 
on 8th December 1941 (Tokyo time) that an agree- 
ment for the passage of the troops was being nego- 
tiated, (2) a Japanese broadcast announcement that 
they had commenced friendly advancement into 
Thailand on the afternoon of the 8th December 
(Tokyo time) (Washington time, 7th December), 
and that Thailand had facilitated the passage by 
concluding an agreement at 12.30 p.m., and (3) a 
conflicting statement, also introduced by the pros- 
ecution, that Japanese troops landed at Singora and 
Patani in Thailand at 3.05 in the morning of 8th 
December (Tokyo time). On 21st December 1941 
Thailand concluded a treaty of alliance with Japan. 
No witness on behalf of Thailand has complained of 
Japan's actions as being acts of aggression. In these 
circumstances we are left without reasonable cer- 
tainty that the Japanese advance into Thailand was 



97 



contrary to the wishes of the Government of Thailand 
and the charges that the defendants initiated and 
waged a war of aggression against the Kingdom of 
Thailand remain unproved. 

Count 31 charges that a war of aggression was 
waged against the British Commonwealth of Nations. 
The Imperial Rescript which was issued about 12 
noon on 8th December 1941 (Tokyo time) states 
"We hereby declare war on the United States of 
America and the British Empire." There is a great 
deal of lack of precision in the use of terms throughout 
the many plans which were formulated for an attack 
on British possessions. Thus such terms as 
"Britain", "Great Britain", and "England" ' are 
used without discrimination and apparently used as 
meaning the same thing. In this case there is no 
doubt as to the entity which is designated by "the 
British Empire". The correct title of that entity 
is "the British Commonwealth of Nations". That 
by the use of the term "the British Empire" they 
intended the entity which is more correctly called 
"the British Commonwealth of Nations" is clear 
when we consider the terms of the Combined Fleet 
Operations Order No. 1 already referred to. That 
order provides that a state of war will exist after 
0000 hours X-Day, which was 8th December 1941 
(Tokyo time), and that, the Japanese forces would 
then commence operations. It is provided that in 
the very first phase of the operations the "South 
Seas Force" will be ready for the enemy fleet in the 
Australia area. Later it was provided that "The 
following are areas expected to be occupied or de- 
stroyed as quickly as operational conditions permit, 
a, Eastern New Guiena, New Britain". These 
were governed by the Commonwealth of Australia 
under mandate from the League of Nations. The 
areas to be destroyed or occupied are also stated to 



98 

include "Strategic points in the Australia area". 
Moreover, "important points in the Australian 
coast" were to be mined. Now the Commonwealth 
of Australia is not accurately described as being part 
of "Great Britain", which is the term used in the 
Combined Fleet Secret Operations Order No. 1, nor 
is it accurately described as being part of "the 
British Empire", which is the term used in the 
Imperial Rescript. It is properly designated as 
part of "the British Commonwealth of Nations". 
It is plain therefore that the entity against which 
hostilities were to be directed and against which 
the declaration of war was directed was "the British 
"Commonwealth of Nations", and Count 31 is well- 
founded when it charges that a war of aggression was 
waged against the British Commonwealth of Nations. 
It is charged in Count 30 of the Indictment that 
a war of aggression was waged against the Common- 
wealth of the Philippines. The Philippines during 
the period of the war were not a completely sovereign 
state. So far as international relations were con- 
cerned they were part of the United States of 
America. It is beyond doubt that a war of aggres- 
sion was waged against the people of the Philippines. 
For the sake of technical accuracy we shall consider 
the aggression against the people of the Philippines 
as being a part of the war of aggression waged against 
the United States of America. 

Chapter VIII. Conventional War Crimes 

(Atrocities) 

After carefully examining and considering all the 
evidence we find that it is not practicable in a 
judgment such as this to state fully the mass of oral 
and documentary evidence presented; for a complete 
statement of the scale and character of the atrocities 
reference must be had to the record of the trial. 



99 

The evidence relating to atrocities and other 
Conventional War Crimes presented before the 
Tribunal establishes that from the opening of the 
war in China until the surrender of Japan in August 
1945 torture, murder, rape and other cruelties of the 
most inhumane and barbarous character were freely 
practiced by the Japanese Army and Navy. During 
a period of several months the Tribunal heard evi- 
dence, orally or by affidavit, from witnesses who 
testified in detail to atrocities committed in all 
theaters of war on a scale so vast, yet following so 
common a pattern in all theaters, that only one 
conclusion is possible — the atrocities were either 
secretly ordered or wilfully permitted by the Japa- 
nese Government or individual members thereof and 
by the leaders of the armed forces. 

[There follows a detailed review of Japanese atrocities and instances of mis- 
treatment of prisoners of war proved before the Tribunal. The Japanese 
system for handling prisoners of war, Allied protests against mistreatment of 
prisoners, and Japanese condonation and concealment of ill-treatment of 
prisoners of war and civilian internees are reviewed.] 



PART C 

Chapter IX. Findings on Counts 
of the Indictment 

In Count 1 of the Indictment it is charged that 
all the defendants together with other persons partic- 
ipated in the formulation or execution of a common 
plan or conspiracy. The object of that common 
plan is alleged to have been that Japan should secure 
the military, naval, political and economic domina- 
tion of East Asia and of the Pacific and Indian 
Oceans, and of all countries and islands therein or 
bordering thereon, and for that purpose should, 
alone or in combination with other countries having 
similar objects, wage a war or wars of aggression 



100 

against any country or countries which might oppose 
that purpose. 

There are undoubtedly declarations by some of 
those who are alleged to have participated in the 
conspiracy which coincide with the above grandiose 
statement, but in our opinion it has not been proved 
that these were ever more than declarations of the 
aspirations of individuals. Thus, for example, we 
do not think the conspirators ever seriously resolved 
to attempt to secure the domination of North and 
South America. So far as the wishes of the conspir- 
ators crystallised into a concrete common plan we 
are of opinion that the territory they had resolved 
that Japan should dominate was confined to East 
Asia, the Western and South Western Pacific Ocean 
and the Indian Ocean, and certain of the islands in 
these oceans. We shall accordingly treat Count 1 
as if the charge had been limited to the above object. 

We shall consider in the first place whether a con- 
spiracy with the above object has been proved to 
have existed. 

Already prior to 1928 Okawa, one of the original 
defendents, who has been discharged from this trial 
on account of his present mental state, was publicly 
advocating that Japan should extend her territory 
on the Continent of Asia by the threat or, if neces- 
sary, by use of military force. He also advocated 
that Japan should seek to dominate Eastern Siberia 
and the South Sea Islands. He predicted that the 
course he advocated must result in a war between 
the East and the West, in which Japan would be the 
champion of the East. He was encouraged and 
aided in his advocacy of this plan by the Japanese 
General Staff. The object of this plan as stated was 
substantially the object of the conspiracy, as we 
have defined it. In our review of the facts we have 
noticed many subsequent declarations of the con- 



101 

spirators as to the object of the conspiracy. These 
do not vary in any material respect from this early 
declaration by Okawa. 

Already when Tanaka was premier, from 1927 to 
1929, a party of military men, with Okawa and other 
civilian supporters, was advocating this policy of 
Okawa's that Japan should expand by the use of 
force. The conspiracy was now in being. It re- 
mained in being until Japan's defeat in 1945. The 
immediate question when Tanaka was premier was 
whether Japan should attempt to expand her influ- 
ence on the continent — beginning with Manchuria — 
by peaceful penetration, as Tanaka and the members 
of his Cabinet wished, or whether that expansion 
should be accomplished by the use of force if neces- 
sary, as the conspirators advocated. It was essential 
that the conspirators should have the support and 
control of the nation. This was the beginning of 
the long struggle between the conspirators, who ad- 
vocated the attainment of their object by force, and 
those politicians and latterly those bureaucrats, who 
advocated Japan's expansion by peaceful measures 
or at least by a more discreet choice of the occasions 
on which force should be employed. This struggle 
culminated in the conspirators obtaining control of 
the organs of government of Japan and preparing 
and regimenting the nation's mind and material 
resources for wars of aggression designed to achieve 
the object of the conspiracy. In overcoming the 
opposition the conspirators employed methods which 
were entirely unconstitutional and at times wholly 
ruthless. Propaganda and persuasion won many to 
their side, but military action abroad without 
Cabinet sanction or in defiance of Cabinet veto, 
assassination of opposing leaders, plots to overthrow 
by force of arms Cabinets which refused to cooperate 
with them, and even a military revolt which seized 



102 

the capital and attempted to overthrow the govern- 
ment were part of the tactics whereby the conspira- 
tors came ultimately to dominate the Japanese 
polity. 

As and when they felt strong enough to overcome 
opposition at home and latterly when they had 
finally overcome all such opposition the conspirators 
carried out in succession the attacks necessary to 
effect their ultimate object, that Japan should dom- 
inate the Far East. In 1931 they launched a war 
of aggression against China and conquered Man- 
churia and Jehol. By 1934 they had commenced to 
infiltrate into North China, garrisoning the land 
and setting up puppet governments designed to 
serve their purposes. From 1937 onwards they 
continued their aggressive war against China on a 
vast scale, overrunning and occupying much of the 
country, setting up puppet governments on the above 
model, and exploiting China's economy and natural 
resources to feed the Japanese military and civilian 
needs. 

In the meantime they had long been planning and 
preparing a war of aggression which they proposed 
to launch against the U.S.S.R. The intention was 
to seize that country's Eastern territories when a 
favourable opportunity occurred. They had also 
long recognized that their exploitation of East Asia 
and their designs on the islands in the Western and 
South Western Pacific would bring them into conflict 
with the United States of America, Britain, France 
and the Netherlands who would defend their threat- 
ened interests and territories. They planned and 
prepared for war against these countries also. 

The conspirators brought about Japan's alliance 
with Germany and Italy, whose policies were as 
aggressive as their own, and whose support they 
desired both in the diplomatic and military fields, 



103 

for their aggressive actions in China had drawn on 
Japan the condemnation of the League of Nations 
and left her friendless in the councils of the world. 

Their proposed attack on the U.S.S.R. was post- 
poned from time to time for various reasons, among 
which were (1) Japan's preoccupation with the war 
in China, which was absorbing unexpectedly large 
military resources, and (2) Germany's pact of non- 
aggression with the U.S.S.R. in 1939, which for the 
time freed the U.S.S.R. from threat of attack on 
her Western frontier, and might have allowed her to 
devote the bulk of her strength to the defence of her 
Eastern territories if Japan had attacked her. 

Then in the year 1940 came Germany's great 
military successes on the continent of Europe. For 
the time being Great Britain, France and the 
Netherlands were powerless to afford adequate pro- 
tection to their interests and territories in the Far 
East. The military preparations of the United 
States were in the initial stages. It seemed to the 
conspirators that no such favourable opportunity 
could readily recur of realising that part of their 
objective which sought Japan's domination of South- 
West Asia and the islands in the Western and South 
Western Pacific and Indian Oceans. After pro- 
longed negotiations with the United States of 
America, in which they refused to disgorge any sub- 
stantial part of the fruits they had seized as the 
result of their war of aggression against China, on 
7th December 1941 the conspirators launched a war 
of aggression against the United States and the 
British Commonwealth. They had already issued 
orders declaring that a state of war existed between 
Japan and the Netherlands as from 00.00 hours on 
7th December 1941. They had previously secured 
a jumping-off place for their attacks on the Philip- 
pines, Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies by 



104 

forcing their troops into French Indo-China under 
threat of military action if this facility was refused 
to them. Recognising the existence of a state of 
war and faced by the imminent threat of invasion of 
her Far Eastern territories, which the conspirators 
had long planned and were now about to execute, 
the Netherlands in self-defence declared war on 
Japan. 

These far-reaching plans for waging wars of aggres- 
sion, and the prolonged and intricate preparation for 
and waging of these wars of aggression were not the 
work of one man. They were the work of many 
leaders acting in pursuance of a common plan for 
the achievement of a common object. That common 
object, that they should secure Japan's domination 
by preparing and waging wars of aggression, was a 
criminal object. Indeed no more grave crimes can 
be conceived of than a conspiracy to wage a war of 
aggression or the waging of a war of aggression, for 
the conspiracy threatens the security of the peoples 
of the world, and the waging disrupts it. The 
probable result of such a conspiracy, and the in- 
evitable result of its execution is that death and 
suffering will be inflicted on countless human beings. 
The Tribunal does not find it necessary to consider 
whether there was a conspiracy to wage wars in 
violation of the treaties, agreements and assurances 
specified in the particulars annexed to Count 1. 
The conspiracy to wage wars of aggression was al- 
ready criminal in the highest degree. 

The Tribunal finds that the existence of the 
criminal conspiracy to wage wars of aggression as 
alleged in Count 1, with the limitation as to object 
already mentioned, has been proved. 

The question whether the defendants or any of 
them participated in that conspiracy will be con- 
sidered when we deal with the individual cases. 



105 

The conspiracy existed for and its execution occu- 
pied a period of many years. Not all of the con- 
spirators were parties to it at the beginning, and 
some of those who were parties to it had ceased to 
be active in its execution before the end. All of 
those who at any time were parties to the criminal 
conspiracy or who at any time with guilty knowledge 
played a part in its execution are guilty of the charge 
contained in Count 1. 

In view of our finding on Count 1 it is unnecessary 
to deal with Counts 2 and 3, which charge the 
formulation or execution of conspiracies with objects 
more limited than that which we have found proved 
under Count 1, or with Count 4, which charges the 
same conspiracy as Count 1 but with more speci- 
fication. 

Count 5 charges a conspiracy wider in extent and 
with even more grandiose objects than that charged 
in Count 1. We are of opinion that although some 
of the conspirators clearly desired the achievement 
of these grandiose objects nevertheless there is not 
sufficient evidence to justify a finding that the con- 
spiracy charged in Count 5 has been proved. 

For the reasons given in an earlier part of this 
judgment we consider it unnecessary to make any 
pronouncement on Counts 6 to 26 and 37 to 53. 
There remain therefore only Counts 27 to 36 and 54 
and 55, in respect of which we now give our findings. 

Counts 27 to 36 charge the crime of waging wars 
of aggression and wars in violation of international 
law, treaties, agreements and assurances against the 
countries named in those counts. 

In the statement of facts just concluded we have 
found that wars of aggression were waged against 
all those countries with the exception of the Com- 
monwealth of the Philippines (Count 30) and the 
Kingdom of Thailand (Count 34). With reference 

855422—50 8 



106 

to the Philippines, as we have heretofore stated, 
that Commonwealth during the period of the war 
was not a completely sovereign State and so far as 
international relations were concerned it was a part 
of the United States of America. We further stated 
that it is beyond doubt that a war of aggression was 
waged in the Philippines, but for the sake of techni- 
cal accuracy we consider the aggressive war in the 
Philippines as being a part of the war of aggression 
waged against the United States of America. 

Count 28 charges the waging of a war of aggression 
against the Republic of China over a lesser period 
of time than that charged in Count 27. Since we 
hold that the fuller charge contained in Count 27 
has been proved we shall make no pronouncement 
on Count 28. 

Wars of aggression having been proved, it is un- 
necessary to consider whether they were also wars 
otherwise in violation of international law or in vio- 
lation of treaties, agreements and assurances. The 
Tribunal finds therefore that it has been proved 
that wars of aggression were waged as alleged in 
Counts 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36. 

Count 54 charges ordering, authorising and per- 
mitting the commission of Conventional War Crimes. 
Count 55 charges failure to take adequate steps to 
secure the observance and prevent breaches of 
conventions and laws of war in respect of prisoners 
of war and civilian internees. We find that there 
have been cases in which crimes under both these 
Counts have been proved. 

Consequent upon the foregoing findings, we pro- 
pose to consider the charges against individual 
defendants in respect only of the following Counts: 
Numbers 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 54 and 55. 



107 



3. 



Chapter X. Verdicts 

[This chapter is omitted.] 

Tabulation of the Tokyo Sentences of 
Individual Defendants 



Dependent 



Araki, Sadao 

Dohihara, Kenji. . . . 
Hashimoto, Kingoro. 
Hata, Shunroku. . . . 
Hiranuma, Kiichiro. 

Hirota, Koki 

Hoshino, Naoki. . . . 
Itagaki, Seishiro. . . . 

Kaya, Okinori 

Kido, Koichi 

Kimura, Heitaro. . . 

Koiso, Kuniaki 

Matsui, Iwane 

Minami, Jiro 

Muto, Akira 

Oka, Takasumi 

Oshima, Hiroshi. . . . 

Sato, Kenryo 

Shigemitsu, Mamoru 
Shimada, Shigetaro. 
Shiratori, Toshio. . . . 

Suzuki, Teiichi 

Togo, Shigenori. 

Tojo, Hideaki 

Umezu, Yoshijiro. . . 



Counts on which convicted 



27 

27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 54. 
27 



27, 29, 31, 32, 55 

27, 29, 31, 32, 36 

27, 55 

27,29,31,32 

27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 54. 

27, 29, 31, 32 

27,29 ,31, 32 

27,29,31,32, 54, 55.... 
27, 29, 31, 32, 55 



27 

27, 29, 31, 32,54, 55 
27,29, 31, 32 



27, 29, 31, 32 

29, 31,32,33, 55 
27, 29, 31, 32 



27,29,31,32 

27,29,31,32 

27,29,31,32,33,54 
27,29,31,32 



Sentence 



Life. 

Hanging. 

Life. 

Life. 

Life. 

Hanging. 

Life. 

Hanging. 

Life. 

Life. 

Hanging. 

Life. 

Hanging. 

Life. 

Hanging. 

Life. 

Life. 

Life. 

7 years. 

Life. 

Life. 

Life. 

20 years. 

Hanging. 

Life. 



III. RIGHTS CLAIMED BY LITTORAL STATES IN 

ADJACENT SEAS 

1. The Corfu Channel Case (Merits), International Court 
of Justice, Judgment of 9 April 1949 

Note. On 22 October 1946 two British destroyers, the Saumarez and Folage, 
while navigating within Albanian territorial waters in the North Corfu Channel, 
struck mines and were seriously damaged, with heavy loss of life. On 13 No- 
vember 1946 British minesweepers swept the area where the incident had oc- 
curred, and recovered some mines. After having tried unsuccessfully to obtain 
an apology and compensation from Albania through diplomatic channels, the 
Government of the United Kingdom brought the dispute to the attention of the 
Security Council of the United Nations by a letter of 10 January 1947. By a 
resolution of 9 April 1947, the Security Council recommended "that the Unite d 
Kingdom and the Albanian Government should immediately refer the dispute to 
the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the 
Statute of the Court." Security Council, Official Records, Second Year, No. 
34, pp. 726-727. 

Proceedings were instituted before the Court by an application of the Govern- 
ment of the United Kingdom on 22 May 1947. By a letter of 2 July 1947 the 
Albanian Government stated that it accepted the recommendation of the Security 
Council and accepted "the Court's jurisdiction for this case." By a judgment 
of 25 March 1948, the Court rejected a preliminary objection by Albania and 
held that it had jurisdiction of the case. I. C. J. Reports 1948, p. 15. Im- 
mediately after the delivery of this judgment the parties notified the Court that 
they had concluded a special agreement submitting two questions to the Court 
for decision. The Court handed down a judgment on the merits on 9 April 
1949; on the same day it issued an order setting time limits for submission of the 
parties' observations concerning the assessment of the amount of compensation 
due from Albania. I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 171. 

(International Court of Justice Reports, 1949, pp. 4-169.) 

Present: Acting President Guerrero; President 
Basdevant; Judges Alvarez, Fabela, Hackworth, 
Winiarski, Zoricic, De Visscher, Sir Arnold McNair, 
Klaestad, Badawi Pasha, Krylov, Read, Hsu Mo, 
Azevedo; M. Ecer, Judge ad hoc. 

In the Corfu Channel case, between the Govern- 
ment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, represented by: 

Sir Eric Beckett, K. C. M. G., K. C, Legal 

108 



109 

Adviser to the Foreign Office, as Agent and Counsel 
assisted by 

The Right Honourable Sir Hartley Shawcross, 
K. C, M. P., Attorney-General, replaced on Novem- 
ber 15th, 1948, by 

Sir Frank Soskice, K. C, M. P., Solicitor-General; 

Mr. C. H. M. Waldock, Professor of international 
law in the University of Oxford, 

Mr. R. O. Wilberforce, 

Mr. J. Mervyn Jones, and 

Mr. M. E. Reed (of the Attorney-General's 
Office), members of the English Bar, as Counsel, and 

The Government of the People's Republic of 
Albania, represented by: 

M. Kahreman Ylli, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary of Albania in Paris, as 
Agent, replaced on February 14th, 1949, by 

M. Behar Shtylla, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary of Albania in Paris, assisted 

by 

M. Pierre Cot. Professeur agrege of the Faculties 
of Law of France, and 

Maitre Joe Nordmann, of the Paris Bar, as Coun- 
sel; and 

Maitre Marc Jacquier, of the Paris Bar, and 

Maitre Paul Villard, of the Paris Bar, as 
Advocates. 

The Court, composed as above, delivers the 
following judgment: 

By a Judgment delivered on March 25th, 1948 
(I. C. J. Reports 1947-1948, p. 15), in the Corfu 
Channel case, in proceedings instituted on May 
22nd, 1947, by an application of the Government 
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North- 
ern Ireland against the Government of the People's 
Republic of Albania, the Court gave its decision on 
the Preliminary Objection filed on December 9th, 



110 

1947, by the latter Government. The Court rejected 
the Objection and decided that proceedings on the 
merits should continue, and fixed the time-limits for 
the filing of subsequent pleadings as follows: for the 
Counter-Memorial of Albania: June 15th, 1948; for 
the Reply of the United Kingdom: August 2nd, 
1948; for the Rejoinder of Albania: September 20th, 
1948. 

Immediately after the delivery of the judgment, 
the Court was notified by the Agents of the Parties 
of a Special Agreement, which is as follows: 

The Government of the People's Republic of Albania, repre- 
sented by their Agent Mr. Kahreman Ylli, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary of Albania at Paris; 
and 

the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, represented by their Agent, Mr. W. E. 
Beckett, C.M.G., K.C., Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office; 

Have accepted the present Special Agreement, which has been 
drawn up as a result of the Resolution of the Security Council of 
the 9th April, 1947, for the purpose of submitting to the Inter- 
national Court of Justice for decision the following questions: 

(1) Is Albania responsible under international law for the 
explosion which occurred on the 22nd October 1946 in Al- 
banian waters and for the damage and loss of human life 
which resulted from them and is there any duty to pay 
compensation? 

(2) Has the United Kingdom under international law 
violated the sovereignty of the Albanian People's Republic 
by reason of the acts of the Royal Navy in Albanian waters 
on the 22nd October and on the 12th and 13th November 
1946 and is there any duty to give satisfaction? 

The Parties agree that the present Special Agreement shall be 
notified to the International Court of Justice immediately after 
the delivery on the 25th March of its judgment on the question 
of jurisdiction. 

The Parties request the Court, having regard to the present 
Special Agreement, to make such orders with regard to pro- 
cedure, in conformity with the Statute and the Rules of the 
Court, as the Court may deem fit, after having consulted the 
Agents of the Parties. 



Ill 



In witness whereof the above-mentioned Agents, being duly 
authorized by their Government to this effect, have signed the 
present Special Agreement. 

Done this 25th day of March, 1948, at midday, at The Hague, 
in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a 
single copy which shall be deposited with the International 
Court of Justice. 

On March 26th, 1948 (I. C. J. Reports 1947-1948, 
p. 53), the Court made an Order in which it placed 
on record that the Special Agreement now formed 
the basis of further proceedings before the Court, 
and stated the questions submitted to it for decision. 
The Court noted that the United Kingdom Govern- 
ment, on October 1st, 1947, that is within the time- 
limit fixed by the Court, had filed a Memorial with 
statements and submissions relating to the incident 
that occurred on October 22nd, 1946. It further 
noted that the Agents, having been consulted, de- 
clared that they agreed in requesting that the order 
and time-limits for the filing of the subsequent 
pleadings as fixed by the Judgment of March 25th, 
1948, be maintained. The Court confirmed this 
order and these time-limits. 

The Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder were 
filed within these limits. The case was thus ready 
for hearing on September 20th, 1948, and the com- 
mencement of the oral proceedings was then fixed 
for November 5th, 1948. 

As the Court did not include upon the Bench a 
judge of Albanian nationality, the Albanian Govern- 
ment availed itself during the proceedings on the 
Preliminary Objection of the right provided by 
Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute, and chose 
M. Igor Daxner, Doctor of Law, President of a 
Chamber of the Supreme Court of Czechoslovakia, 
as Judge ad hoc. On October 28th, 1948, the Reg- 
istrar was informed that Judge Daxner was 



112 

prevented by reasons of health from sitting on the date 
fixed. The Court decided on November 2nd, 1948, 
to fix a time-limit expiring on November 7th, within 
which the Albanian Government might notify the 
name of the person whom it wished to choose as 
Judge ad hoc in place of Dr. Daxner, and to post- 
pone the opening of the hearing until November 9th, 
Within the time fixed the Albanian Government 
designated M. Bohuslav Ecer, Doctor of Law and 
Professor in the Faculty of Law at Brno, and dele- 
gate of the Czechoslovak Government to the Inter- 
national Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. 

Public sittings were held by the Court on the 
following dates: November, 1948, 9th to 12th, 15th 
to 19th, 22nd to 26th, 28th and 29th; December, 
1948, 1st to 4th, 6th to 11th, 13th, 14th and 17th; 
January, 1949, 17th to 22nd. In the course of the 
sittings from November 9th to 19th, 1948, and from 
January 17th to 22nd, 1949, the Court heard argu- 
ments by Sir Hartley Shawcross, K. C, Counsel, 
Sir Eric Beckett, K. C, Agent and Counsel, and 
Sir Frank Soskice, K. C, Counsel, on behalf of the 
United Kingdom; and by M. Kahreman Ylli, Agent, 
and MM. J. Nordmann and Pierre Cot, Counsel, 
on behalf of Albania. In the course of the sittings 
from November 22nd to December 14th, 1948, the 
Court heard the evidence of the witnesses and experts 
called by each of the Parties in reply to questions 
put to them in examination and cross-examination 
on behalf of the Parties, and by the President on 
behalf of the Court or by a Member of the Court. 
The following persons gave evidence: 

Called by the United Kingdom: 

Commander E. R. D. Sworder, O.B.E., D.S.C., 

Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, as witness and 
expert; 



113 

Karel Kovacic, former Lieutenant-Commander in 
the Yugoslav Navy, as witness; 

Captain W. H. Selby, D.S.C., Royal Navy, as 
witness; 

Commander R. T. Paul, C.B.E., Royal Navy, as 
witness; 

Lieutenant-Commander P. K. Lankester, Royal 
Navy, as witness and expert; 

Commander R. Mestre, French Navy, as witness; 

Commander Q. P. Whitford, O.B.E., Royal Navy, 
as witness and expert; 

Called by Albania: 

Captain Ali Shtino, Albanian Army, as witness; 

First Captain Aquile Polena, Albanian Army, as 
witness; 

Xhavit Muco, former Vice-President of the Execu- 
tive Committee of Saranda, as witness; 

Captain B. I. Ormanov, Bulgarian Navy, as 
expert. 

Rear-Admiral Raymond Moullec, French Navy, 
as expert. 

Documents, including maps, photographs and 
sketches, were filed by both Parties, and on one 
occasion by the Parties jointly, both as annexes to 
the pleadings, and after the close of the written 
proceedings. On one occasion during the sittings 
when a photostat of an extract from a document 
was submitted, the Court, on November 24th, 1948, 
made a decision in which it reminded both Parties 
of the provisions of Article 48 and Article 43, para- 
graph 1, of the Rules of Court; held that the docu- 
ment in question could be received only if it were 
presented in an original and complete form; ordered 
that all documents which the Parties intended to 
use should previously be filed in the Registry; and 
reserved the right to inform the Parties later which 



114 

of these documents should be presented in an 
original, and which in certified true copy, form. 

Another decision as to the production of a series 
of new documents was given by the Court on Decem- 
ber 10th, 1948. This decision noted that the Parties 
were agreed as to the production of certain of these 
documents and that certain others were withdrawn; 
authorized the production of certain other docu- 
ments; lastly, in the case of one of these. documents, 
the examination of which had been subjected to 
certain conditions, the Court's decision placed on 
record the consent of the other Party to its produc- 
tion and, in view of that consent, permitted its 
production, having regard to the special circum- 
stances; but the Court expressly stated that this 
permission could not form a precedent for the future . 

By an Order of December 17th, 1948, the Court, 
having regard to the fact that certain points had 
been contested between the Parties which made it 
necessary to obtain an expert opinion, defined these 
points, and entrusted the duty of giving the expert 
opinion to a Committee composed of Commodore 
J. Bull of the Royal Norwegian Navy, Commodore 
S. A. Forshell of the Royal Swedish Navy, and 
Lieutenant-Commander S. J. W Elfferich of the Royal 
Netherlands Navy. These Experts elected Com- 
modore Bull as their chairman, and filed their 
Report on January 8th, 1949, within the prescribed 
time-limit. By a decision read at a public sitting 
on January 17th, the Court requested the Experts 
to proceed to Sibenik in Yugoslavia and Saranda in 
Albania and to make on the land and in the waters 
adjacent to these places any investigations and 
experiments that they might consider useful with a 
view to verifying, completing, and, if mecessary, 
modifying the answers given in their report of 
January 8th. The Experts' second report — in which 



115 

Commodore Bull did not join, having been unable 
to make the journey for reasons of health — was filed 
on February 8th, 1949. On February 10th, three 
members of the Court put questions to the Experts, 
to which the Experts replied on February 12th. 

At sittings held from January 17th to 22nd, 1949, 
the representatives of the Parties had an opportunity 
of commenting orally on the Experts' report of 
January 8th. They also filed written observations 
concerning the further statements contained in the 
Report of February 8th and the replies of February 
12th, as provided in the Court's decision of January 
17th. 

The Parties' submissions, as formulated by their 
Agents or Counsel at the end of the hearings on the 
18th, 19th, 21st and 22nd January, 1949, are as 
follows: 

Question (1) of the Special Agreement. 
On behalf of the United Kingdom: 

The Government of the United Kingdom asks the Court in 
this case to adjudge and declare as follows: 

(1) That, on October 22nd, 1946, damage was caused to His 
Majesty's ships Saumarez and Volage, which resulted in the 
death and injuries of 44, and personal injuries to 42, British 
officers and men by a minefield of anchored automatic mines 
in the international highway of the Corfu Strait in an area 
south-west of the Bay of Saranda; 

(2) That the aforesaid minefield was laid between May 15th 
and October 22nd, 1946, by or with the connivance or knowledge 
of the Albanian Government; 

(3) That (alternatively to 2) the Albanian Government knew 
that the said minefield was lying in a part of its territorial waters; 

(4) That the Albanian Government did not notify the exist- 
ence of these mines as required by the Hague Convention VIII 



1 The list of documents in support produced by the Parties and accepted by 
the Court will be found in Annex 1 to this Judgment. 

2 See Annex 2 for the Experts' Report of January 8th, the Court's decision of 
January 17th, the Experts' second Report of February 8th, the questions put by 
three members of the Court, and the Experts' replies of February 12th. 



116 

of 1907 in accordance with the general principle of international 
law and humanity; 

(5) That in addition, and as an aggravation of the conduct of 
Albania as set forth in Conclusions (3) and (4), the Albanian 
Government, or its agents, knowing that His Majesty's ships 
were going to make the passage through the North Corfu swept 
channel, and being in a position to observe their approach, and 
having omitted, as alleged in paragraph 4 of these conclusions 
to notify the existence of the said mines, failed to warn His 
Majesty's ships of the danger of the said mines of which the 
Albanian Government or its agents were well aware; 

(6) That in addition, and as a further aggravation of the con- 
duct of Albania as set forth in Conclusions (3), (4), and (5), the 
permission of the existence without notification of the minefield 
in the North Corfu Channel, being an international highways 
was a violation of the right of innocent passage which exist, 
in favour of foreign vessels (whether warships or merchant 
ships) through such an international highway; 

(7) That the passage of His Majesty's ships through the North 
Corfu Channel on October 22nd, 1946, was an exercise of the 
right of innocent passage, according to the law and practice of 
civilized nations; 

(8) That even if, for any reason, it is held that conclusion (7) 
is not established, nevertheless, the Albanian Government is not 
thereby relieved of its international responsibility for the damage 
caused to the ships by reason of the existence of an unnotified 
minefield of which it had knowledge; 

(9) That in the circumstances set forth in the Memorial as 
summarized in the preceding paragraphs of these Conclusions, 
the Albanian Government has committed a breach of its obliga- 
tions under international law, and is internationally responsible 
to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the 
deaths, injuries and damage caused to His Majesty's ships and 
personnel, as set out more particularly in paragraph 18 of the 
Memorial and the Annexes thereto; 

(10) That the Albanian Government is under an obligation to 
the Government of the United Kingdom to make repaiation in 
respect of the breach of its international obligations as aforesaid; 

(11) That His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom 
has, as a result of the breach by the Albanian Government of its 
obligations under international law, sustained the following 
damage: 



117 



Damage to H.M.S. Saumarez £750,000 

Damage to H.M.S. Volage 75,000 

Compensation for the pensions and other expenses incurred by the 
Government of the United Kingdom in respect of the deaths and 
injuries of naval personnel 50,000 

875,000 

On behalf of the Albanian Government: 

[Translation.] 

(1) Under the terms of the Special Agreement of March 25th, 
1948, the following question has been submitted to the Inter- 
national Court of Justice: 

c Is Albania responsible under international law for the ex~ 
plosions which occurred on the 22nd October 1946 in 
Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of human life 
which resulted from them and is there any duty to pay 
compensation?' 

The Court would not have jurisdiction, in virtue of this 
Special Agreement, to decide, if the case arose, on the claim 
for the assessment of the compensation set out in the sub- 
missions of the United Kingdom Government. 

(2) It has not been proved that the mines which caused the 
accidents of October 22nd, 1946, were laid by Albania. 

(3) It has not been proved that these mines were laid by a 
third Power on behalf of Albania. 

(4) It has not been proved that these mines were laid with the 
help or acquiescence of Albania. 

(5) It has not been proved that Albania knew, before the 
incidents of October 22nd, 1946, that these mines were in her 
territorial waters. 

(6) Consequently, Albania cannot be declared responsible, 
under international law, for the explosions which occurred on 
October 22nd, 1946, in Albanian waters, and for the damage 
and loss of human life which resulted from them. Albania 
owes no compensation to the United Kingdom Government. 

Question (2) of the Special Agreement. 

On behalf of the Albanian Government: 

[Translation.] 

(1) Under the terms of the Special Agreement concluded on 
March 25th, 1948, the International Court of Justice has before 
it the following question: 

Has the United Kingdom under international law vio- 
lated the sovereignty of the Albanian People's Republic by 



118 

reason of the acts of the Royal Navy in Albanian waters on 
the 22nd October and on the 12th and 13th November 1946, 
and is there any duty to give satisfaction? 

(2) The coastal State is entitled, in exceptional circumstances, 
to regulate the passage of foreign warships through its territorial 
waters. 

(3) This rule is applicable to the North Carfu Channel. 

(4) In October and November, 1946, there existed, in this 
area, exceptional circumstances which gave the Albanian 
Government the right to require that foreign warships should 
obtain previous authorization before passing through its terri- 
torial waters. 

(5) The passage of several British warships through Albanian 
territorial waters on October 22nd, 1946, without previous 
authorization, constituted a breach of international law. 

(6) In any case that passage was not of an innocent character. 

(7) The British naval authorities were not entitled to proceed 
on November 12th and 13th, 1946, to sweep mines in Albanian 
territorial waters without the previous consent of the Albanian 
authorities. 

(8) The Court should find that, on both these occasions, the 
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland committed a breach of the rules of inter- 
national law and that the Albanian Government has a right to 
demand that it should give satisfaction therefor." 

On behalf of the United Kingdom Government: 

I ask the Court to decide that on neither head of the counter- 
claim has Albania made out her case, and that there is no ground 
for the Court to award nominal damages of one farthing or one 
franc. 

sk »i* jj^ *i* jlj 

By the first part of the Special Agreement, the 
following question is submitted to the Court: 

(1) Is Albania responsible under international law for the 
explosions which occurred on the 22nd October 1946 in Albanian 
waters and for the damage and loss of human life which resulted 
from them and is there any duty to pay compensation? 

On October 22nd, 1946, a squadron of British 
warships, the cruisers Mauritius and Leander and 
the destroyers Saumarez and Volage, left the port of 



119 

Corfu and proceeded northward through a channel 
previously swept for mines in the North Corfu Strait. 
The cruiser Mauritius was leading, followed by the 
destroyer Saumarez; at a certain distance thereafter 
came the cruiser Leander followed by the destroyer 
Volage. Outside the Bay of Saranda, Saumarez 
struck a mine and was heavily damaged. Volage 
was ordered to give her assistance and to take her 
in tow. Whilst towing the damaged ship, Volage 
struck a mine and was much damaged. Neverthe- 
less, she succeeded in towing the other ship back 
to Corfu. 

Three weeks later, on November 13th, the North 
Corfu Channel was swept by British minesweepers 
and twenty- two moored mines were cut. Two 
mines were taken to Malta for expert examination. 
During the minesweeping operations it was thought 
that the mines were of the German GR type, but 
it was subsequently established that they were of 
the German GY type. 

The Court will consider first whether the two 
explosions that occurred on October 22nd, 1946, 
were caused by mines belonging to the minefield 
discovered on November 13th. 

It was pointed out on behalf of the United King- 
dom Government that this minefield had been 
recently laid. This was disputed in the Albanian 
pleadings but was no longer disputed during the 
hearing. One of the Albanian Counsel expressly 
recognized that the minefield had been recently laid, 
and the other Counsel subsequently made a similar 
declaration. It was further asserted on behalf of 
the Albanian Government that the minefield must 
have been laid after October 22nd; this would make 
it impossible at the same time to maintain that the 
minefield was old. The documents produced by the 
United Kingdom Government and the statements 



120 

made by the Court's Experts and based on these 
documents show that the minefield had been recently 
laid. This is now established. 

The United Kingdom Government contended that 
the mines which struck the two ships on October 
22nd were part of this minefield. 

This was contested by the Albanian Government, 
which argued that these mines may have been floating 
mines, coming from old minefields in the vicinity, 
or magnetic ground mines, magnetic moored mines, 
or German GR mines. It was also contested by 
them that the explosions occurred in the previously 
swept channel at the place where the minefield was 
discovered. The Albanian Government also con- 
tended that the minefield was laid after October 
22nd, between that date and the minesweeping 
operation on 12-1 3th November. 

On the evidence produced, the Court finds that 
the following facts are established: 

In October, 1944, the North Corfu Channel was 
swept by the British Navy and no mines were found 
in the channel thus swept, whereupon the existence 
of a safe route through the Channel was announced 
in November 1944. In January and February, 1945, 
the Channel was check-swept by the British Navy 
with negative results. That the British Admiralty 
must have considered the Channel to be a safe route 
for navigation is shown by the fact that on May 15th, 
1946, it sent two British cruisers and on October 
22nd a squadron through the Channel without any 
special measures of precaution against danger from 
moored mines. It was in this swept channel that 
the minefield was discovered on November 13th, 
1946. 

It is further proved by evidence produced by the 
United Kingdom Government that the mining of 
Saumarez and Volage occurred in Albanian territorial 



121 

waters, just at the place in the swept channel where 
the minefield was found, as indicated on the chart 
forming Annex 9 to the United Kingdom Memorial. 
This is confirmed by the Court's Experts, who con- 
sider it to be free from any doubt that the two ships 
were mined in approximately the position indicated 
on this chart. 

It is established by the evidence of witnesses that 
the minefield consisted of moored contact mines of 
the German GY type. It is further shown by the 
nature of the damage sustained by the two ships, 
and confirmed by witnesses and experts, that it 
could not have been caused by floating mines, mag- 
netic ground mines, magnetic moored mines, or 
German GR mines. The experts of the Court have 
stated that the nature of the damage excludes the 
faintest possibility of its cause being a floating mine; 
nor could it have been caused by a ground mine. 
They also expressed the view that the damage must 
have been caused by the explosion of moored contact 
mines, each having a charge of approximately 600 lbs. 
of explosives, and that the two ships struck mines 
of the same type as those which were swept on 
November 13th, 1946. 

The Albanian Government put forward a sug- 
gestion that the minefield discovered on November 
13th may have been laid after October 22nd, so 
that the explosions that occurred on this latter date 
would not have been caused by mines from the field 
in question. But it brought no evidence in support 
of this supposition. As it has been established that 
the explosions could only have been due to moored 
mines having an explosive charge similar to that 
contained in GY mines, there would, if the Albanian 
contention were true, have been at least two mines 
of this nature in the channel outside the Bay of 
Saranda, in spite of the sweep in October 1944 and 

855422—50 9 



122 

the check-sweeps in January and February 1945; 
and these mines would have been struck by the two 
vessels at points fairly close to one another on 
October 22nd, 1946. Such a supposition is too im- 
probable to be accepted. 

The Court consequently finds that the following 
facts are established. The two ships were mined 
in Albanian territorial waters in a previously swept 
and check-swept channel just at the place where a 
newly laid minefield consisting of moored contact 
German GY mines was discovered three weeks later. 
The damage sustained by the ships was inconsistent 
with damage which could have been caused by 
floating mines, magnetic ground mines, magnetic 
moored mines, or German GR mines, but its nature 
and extent were such as would be caused by mines 
of the type found in the minefield. In such circum- 
stances the Court arrives at the conclusion that the 
explosions were due to mines belonging to that 
minefield. 

Such are the facts upon which the Court must, in 
order to reply to the first question of the Special 
Agreement, give judgment as to Albania's respon- 
sibility for the explosions on October 22nd, 1946, 
and for the damage and loss of human life which 
resulted, and for the compensation, if any, due in 
respect of such damage and loss. 

To begin with, the foundation for Albania's re- 
sponsibility, as alleged by the United Kingdom, must 
be considered. On this subject, the main position 
of the United Kingdom is to be found in its submis- 
sion No. 2: that the minefield which caused the ex- 
plosions was laid between May 15th, 1946, and 
October 22nd, 1946, by or with the connivance or 
knowledge of the Albanian Government. 



123 

The Court considered first the various grounds 
for responsibility alleged in this submission. 

In fact, although the United Kingdom Govern- 
ment never abandoned its contention that Albania 
herself laid the mines, very little attempt was made 
by the Government to demonstrate this point. In 
the written Reply, the United Kingdom Government 
takes note of the Albanian Government's formal 
statement that it did not lay the mines, and was not in 
a position to do so, as Albania possessed no navy; 
and that, on the whole Albanian littoral, the Albanian 
authorities only had a few launches and motor boats. 
In the light of these statements, the Albanian Gov- 
ernment was called upon, in the Reply, to disclose 
the circumstances in which two Yugoslav war 
vessels, the Mljet and the Meljine, carrying contact 
mines of the GY type, sailed southward from the 
port of Sibenik on or about October 18th, and pro- 
ceeded to the Corfu Channel. The United Kingdom 
Government, having thus indicated the argument 
upon which it was thenceforth to concentrate, stated 
that it proposed to show that the said warships, with 
the knowledge and connivance of the Albanian Gov- 
ernment, laid mines in the Corfu Channel just before 
October 22nd, 1946. The facts were presented in 
the same light and in the same language in the oral 
reply by Counsel for the United Kingdom Govern- 
ment at the sittings on January 17th and 18th, 1949. 

Although the suggestion that the minefield was 
laid by Albania was repeated in the United Kingdom 
statement in Court on January 18th, 1949, and in 
the final submissions read in Court on the same day, 
this suggestion was in fact hardly put forward at 
that time except pro memoria, and no evidence in 
support was furnished. 

In these circumstances, the Court need pay no 
further attention to this matter. 



124 

The Court now comes to the second alternative 
argument of the United Kingdom Government, 
namely, that the minefield was laid with the con- 
nivance of the Albanian Government. According 
to this argument, the minelaying operation was 
carried out by two Yugoslav warships at a date prior 
to October 22nd, but very near that date. This 
would imply collusion between the Albanian and 
the Yugoslav Governments, consisting either of a 
request by the Albanian Government to the Yugoslav 
Government for assistance, or of acquiescence by the 
Albanian authorities in the laying of the mines. 

In proof of this collusion, the United Kingdom 
Government relied on the evidence of Lieutenant- 
Commander Kovacic, as shown in his affidavit of 
October 4th, 1948, and in his statements in Court 
at the public sittings on November 24th, 25th, 26th 
and 27th, 1948. The Court gave much attention to 
this evidence and to the documentary information 
supplied by the Parties. It supplemented and 
checked all this information by sending two experts 
appointed by it to Sibenik: Commodore S. A. Forshell 
and Lieutenant-Commander S. J. W. Elfferich. 

Without deciding as to the personal sincerity of 
the witness Kovacic, or the truth of what he said, 
the Court finds that the facts stated by the witness 
from his personal knowledge are not sufficient to 
prove what the United Kingdom Government con- 
sidered them to prove. His allegations that he saw 
mines being loaded upon two Yugoslav minesweepers 
at Sibenik and that these two vessels departed from 
Sibenik about October 18th and returned a few days 
after the occurrence of the explosions do not suffice 
to constitute decisive legal proof that the mines were 
laid by these two vessels in Albanian waters off 
Saranda. The statements attributed by the witness 
Kovacic to third parties, of which the Court has 



125 

received no personal and direct confirmation, can 
be regarded only as allegations falling short of con- 
clusive evidence. A charge of such exceptional 
gravity against a State would require a degree of 
certainty that has not been reached here. 

Apart from Kovacic's evidence, the United King- 
dom Government endeavoured to prove collusion 
between Albania and Yugoslavia by certain pre- 
sumptions of fact, or circumstantial evidence, such 
as the possession, at that time, by Yugoslavia, and 
by no other neighbouring State, of GY mines, and 
by the bond of close political and military alliance 
between Albania and Yugoslavia, resulting from the 
Treaty of friendship and mutual assistance signed 
by those two States on July 9th, 1946. 

The Court considers that, even in so far as these 
facts are established, they lead to no firm conclusion. 
It has not been legally established that Yugoslavia 
possessed any GY mines, and the origin of the mines 
laid in Albanian territorial waters remains a matter 
for conjecture. It is clear that the existence of a 
treaty, such as that of July 9th, 1946, however close 
may be the bonds uniting its signatories, in no way 
leads to the conclusion that they participated in a 
criminal act. 

On its side, the Yugoslav Government, although 
not a party to the proceedings, authorized the 
Albanian Government to produce certain Yugoslav 
documents, for the purpose of refuting the United 
Kingdom contention that the mines had been laid 
by two ships of the Yugoslav Navy. As the Court 
was anxious for full light to be thrown on the facts 
alleged, it did not refuse to receive these documents. 
But Yugoslavia's absence from the proceedings 
meant that these documents could only be admitted 
as evidence subject to reserves, and the Court finds 



126 

it unnecessary to express an opinion upon their 
probative value. 

The Court need not dwell on the assertion of one 
of the Counsel for the Albanian Government that 
the minefield might have been laid by the Greek 
Government. It is enough to say that this was a 
mere conjecture which, as Counsel himself admitted, 
was based on no proof. 

In the light of the information now available to 
the Court, the authors of the minelaying remain 
unknown. In any case, the task of the Court, as 
defined by the Special Agreement, is to decide 
whether Albania is responsible, under international 
law, for the explosions which occurred on October 
22nd, 1946, and to give judgment as to the compen- 
sation, if any. 

Finally, the United Kingdom Government put 
forward the argument that, whoever the authors of 
the minelaying were, it could not have been done 
without the Albanian Government's knowledge. 

It is clear that knowledge of the minelaying cannot 
be imputed to the Albanian Government by reason 
merely of the fact that a minefield discovered in 
Albanian territorial waters caused the explosions of 
which the British warships were the victims. It is 
true, as international practice shows, that a State on 
whose territory or in whose waters an act contrary 
to international law has occurred, may be called 
upon to give an explanation. It is also true that 
that State cannot evade such a request by limiting 
itself to a reply that it is ignorant of the circum- 
stances of the act and of its authors. The State 
may, up to a certain point, be bound to supply 
particulars of the use made by it of the means of 
information and inquiry at its disposal. But it can- 
not be concluded from the mere fact of the control 
exercised by a State over its territory and waters 



127 

that that State necessarily knew, or ought to have 
known, of any unlawful act perpetrated therein, nor 
yet that it necessarily knew, or should have known, 
the authors. This fact, by itself and apart from 
other circumstances, neither involves prima facie re- 
sponsibility nor shifts the burden of proof. 

On the other hand, the fact of this exclusive terri- 
torial control exercised by a State within its frontiers 
has a bearing upon the methods of proof available 
to establish the knowledge of that State as to such 
events. By reason of this exclusive control, the other 
State, the victim of a breach of international law, is 
often unable to furnish direct proof of facts giving 
rise to responsibility. Such a State should be al- 
lowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact 
and circumstantial evidence. This indirect evidence 
is admitted in all systems of law, and its use is recog- 
nized by international decisions. It must be re- 
garded as of special weight when it is based on a 
series of facts linked together and leading logically 
to a single conclusion. 

The Court must examine therefore whether it has 
been established by means of indirect evidence that 
Albania has knowledge of minelaying in her terri- 
torial waters independently of any connivance on her 
part in this operation. The proof may be drawn 
from inferences of fact, provided that they leave no 
room for reasonable doubt. The elements of fact on 
which these inferences can be based may differ from 
those which are relevant to. the question of con- 
nivance. 

In the present case, two series of facts, which 
corroborate one another, have to be considered: the 
first relates to Albania's attitude before and after 
the disaster of October 22nd, 1946; the other concerns 
the feasibility of observing minelaying from the 
Albanian coast. 



128 

1. It is clearly established that the Albanian 
Government constantly kept a close watch over the 
waters of the North Corfu Channel, at any rate after 
May 1946. This vigilance is proved by the declara- 
tion of the Albanian Delegate in the Security Council 
on February 19th, 1947 {Official Records of the Se- 
curity Council, Second Year, No. 16, p. 328), and 
especially by the diplomatic notes of the Albanian 
Government concerning the passage of foreign ships 
through its territorial waters. This vigilance some- 
times went so far as to involve the use of force: for 
example the gunfire in the direction of the British 
cruisers Orion and Superb on May ISth, 1946, and 
the shots fired at the U.N.R.R.A. tug and barges on 
October 29th, 1946, as established by the affidavit 
Enrico Bargellini, which was not seriously contested. 

The Albanian Government's notes are all evidence 
of its intention to keep a jealous watch on its terri- 
torial waters. The note verbale addressed to the 
United Kingdom on May 21st, 1946, reveals the 
existence of a "General Order", in execution of which 
the Coastal Commander gave the order to fire in 
the direction of the British cruisers. This same 
note formulates a demand that "permission" shall 
be given, by the Albanian authorities, for passage 
through territorial waters. The insistence on "for- 
malities" and "permission" by Albania is repeated 
in the Albanian note of June 19th. 

As the Parties agree that the minefield had been 
recently laid, it must be concluded that the operation 
was carried out during the period of close watch by 
the Albanian authorities in this sector. This con- 
clusion renders the Albanian Government's assertion 
of ignorance a priori somewhat improbable. 

The Court also noted the reply of Captain Ali 
Shtino to a question put by it; this reply shows that 
the witness, who had been called on to replace the 



129 

Coastal Defence Commander for a period of thirteen 
to fifteen days, immediately before the events of 
October 22nd, had received the following order: 
"That the look-out posts must inform me of every 
movement [in the Corfu Channel], and that no action 
would be taken on our part." 

The telegrams sent by the Albanian Government 
on November 13th and November 27th, 1946, to 
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at a 
time when that Government was fully aware of the 
discovery of the minefield in Albanian territorial 
waters, are especially significant of the measures 
taken by the Albanian Government. In the first 
telegram, that Government raised the strongest pro- 
test against the movements and actibity of British 
naval units in its territorial waters on November 12th 
and 13th, 1946, without even mentioning the exist- 
ence of a minefield in these waters. In the second, 
it repeats its accusations against the United King- 
dom, without in any way protesting against the lay- 
ing of this minefield which, if effected without 
Albania's consent, constituted a very serious violation 
of her sovereignty. 

Another indication of the Albanian Government's 
knowledge consists in the fact that that Government 
did not notify the presence of mines in its waters, at 
the moment when it must have known this, at the 
latest after the sweep on November 13th, and further, 
whereas the Greek Government immediately ap- 
pointed a Commission to inquire into the events of 
October 22nd, the Albanian Government took no 
decision of such a nature, nor did it proceed to the 
judicial investigation incumbent, in such a case, on 
the territorial sovereign. 

This attitude does not seem reconcilable with the 
alleged ignorance of the Albanian authorities that 
the minefield had been laid in Albanian territorial 



130 

waters. It could be explained if the Albanian Gov- 
ernment, while knowing of the minelaying, desired 
the circumstances of the operation to remain secret. 

2. As regards the possibility of observing mine- 
laying from the Albanian coast, the Court regards 
the following facts, relating to the technical condi- 
tions of a secret minelaying and to the Albanian 
surveillance, as particularly important. 

The Bay of Saranda and the channel used by ship- 
ping through the Strait are, from their geographical 
configuration, easily watched; the entrance of the 
bay is dominated by heights offering excellent ob- 
servation points, both over the bay and over the 
Strait; whilst the channel throughout is close to the 
Albanian coast. The laying of a minefield in these 
waters could hardly fail to have been observed by 
the Albanian coastal defences. 

On this subject, it must first be said that the 
minelaying operation itself must have required a 
certain time. The method adopted required, accord- 
ing to the Experts of the Court, the methodical and 
well thought-out laying of two rows of mines that 
had clearly a combined offensive and defensive pur- 
pose: offensive, to prevent the passage, through the 
Channel, of vessels drawing ten feet of water or 
more; defensive, to prevent vessels of the same 
draught from entering the Bay of Saranda. The 
report of the Experts reckons the time that the mine- 
layers would have been in the waters, between Cape 
Kiephali and St. George's Monastery, at between 
two and two and a half hours. This is sufficient 
time to attract the attention of the observation posts, 
placed, as the Albanian Government stated, at Cape 
Kiephali and St. George's Monastery. 

The facilities for observation from the coast are 
confirmed by the two following circumstances: the 
distance of the nearest mine from the coast was only 



131 

500 metres; the minelayers must have passed at not 
more than about 500 metres from the coast between 
Denta Point and St. George's Monastery. 

Being anxious to obtain any technical information 
that might guide it in its search for the truth, the 
Court submitted the following question to the Ex- 
perts appointed by it: 

On the assumption that the mines discovered on November 
13th, 1946, were laid at some date within the few preceding 
months, whoever may have laid them, you are requested to ex- 
amine the information available regarding (a) the number and 
the nature of the mines, (b) the means for laying them, and (c) 
the time required to do so, having regard to the different states 
of the sea, the conditions of the locality, and the different 
weather conditions, and to ascertain whether it is possible in 
that way to draw any conclusions, and, if so, what conclusions, 
in regard to: 

(1) the means employed for laying the minefield dis- 
covered on November 13th, 1946, and 

(2) the possibility of mooring those mines with those 
means without the Albanian authorities being aware of it, 
having regard to the extent of the measures of vigilance 
existing in the Saranda region. 

As the first Report submitted by the Experts did 
not seem entirely conclusive, the Court, by a decision 
of January 17th, 1949, asked the Experts to go to 
Saranda and to verify, complete and, if necessary, 
modify their answers. In this way, observations 
were made and various experiments carried out on 
the spot, in the presence of the experts of the Parties 
and of Albanian officials, with a view to estimating 
the possibility of the minelaying having been ob- 
served by the Albanian look-out posts. On this 
subject reference must be made to a test of visibility 
by night, carried out on the evening of January 28th, 
1949, at St. George's Monastery. A motor ship, 27 
metres long, and with no bridge, wheel-house, or 
funnel, and very low on the water, was used. The 



132 

ship was completely blacked out, and on a moonless 
night, i.e., under the most favourable conditions for 
avoiding discovery, it was clearly seen and heard 
from St. George's Monastery. The noise of the 
motor was heard at a distance of 1,800 metres, and 
the ship itself was sighted at 670 metres and remained 
visible up to about 1,900 metres. 

The Experts Report on this visit stated that: 

The Experts consider it to be indisputable that if a normal 
look-out was kept at Cape Kiephali, Denta Point, and St. 
George's Monastery, and if the look-outs were equipped with 
binoculars as has been stated, under normal weather conditions 
for this area, the minelaying operations shown in Annex 9 to the 
United Kingdom Memorial must have been noticed by these 
coastguards. 

The Court cannot fail to give great weight to the 
opinion of the Experts who examined the locality in 
a manner giving every guarantee of correct and im- 
partial information. Apart from the existence of a 
look-out post at Cape Denta, which has not been 
proved, the Court, basing itself on the declarations 
of the Albanian Government that look-out posts were 
stationed at Cape Kiephali and St. George's Mon- 
astery, refers to the following conclusions in the 
Experts' Report: (1) that in the case of minelaying 
from the North towards the South, the minelayers 
would have been seen from Cape Kiephali; (2) in the 
case of minelaying from the South, the minelayers 
would have been seen from Cape Kiephali and St. 
George's Monastery. 

From all the facts and observations mentioned 
above, the Court draws the conclusion that the laying 
of the minefield which caused the explosions on Octo- 
ber 22nd, 1946, could not have been accomplished 
without the knowledge of the Albanian Government. 

The obligations resulting for Albania from this 



133 

knowledge are not disputed between the Parties. 
Counsel for the Albanian Government expressly 
recognized that [translation] "if Albania had been in- 
formed of the operation before the incidents of 
October 22nd, and in time to warn the British vessels 
and shipping in general of the existence of mines in 
the Corfu Channel, her responsibility would be in- 
volved. . . .". 

The obligations incumbent upon the Albanian 
authorities consisted in notifying, for the benefit of 
shipping in general, the existence of a minefield in 
Albanian territorial waters and in warning the ap- 
proaching British warships of the imminent danger 
to which the minefield exposed them. Such obliga- 
tions are based not on the Hague Convention of 
1907, No. VIII, which is applicable in time of war, 
but on certain general and well-recognized principles, 
namely: elementary considerations of humanity, even 
more exacting in peace than in war; the principle of 
the freedom of maritime communication; and every 
State's obligation not to allow knowingly its territory 
to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other 
States. 

In fact, Albania neither notified the existence of 
the minefield, nor warned the British warships of the 
danger they were approaching. 

But Albania's obligation to notify shipping of the 
existence of mines in her waters depends on her hav- 
ing .obtained knowledge of that fact in sufficient time 
before October 22nd; and the duty of the Albanian 
coastal authorities to warn the British ships depends 
on the time that elapsed between the moment that 
these ships were reported and the moment of the first 
explosion. 

On this subject, the Court makes the following 
observations. As has already been stated, the Par- 
ties agree that the mines were recently laid. It must 



134 

be concluded that the minelaying, whatever may 
have been its exact date, was done at a time when 
there was a close Albanian surveillance over the 
Strait. If it be supposed that it took place at the 
last possible moment, i.e., in the night of October 
21st-22nd, the only conclusion to be drawn would 
be that a general notification to the shipping of all 
States before the time of the explosions would have 
been difficult, perhaps even impossible. But this 
would certainly not have prevented the Albanian 
authorities from taking, as they should have done, 
all necessary steps immediately to warn ships near 
the danger zone, more especially those that were 
approaching that zone. When on October 22nd 
about 13.00 hours the British warships were reported 
by the look-out post at St. George's Monastery to 
the Commander of the Coastal Defences as approach- 
ing Cape Long, it was perfectly possible for the Al- 
banian authorities to use the interval of almost two 
hours that elapsed before the explosion affecting 
Saumarez (14.53 hours or 14.55 hours) to warn the 
vessels of the danger into which they were running. 

In fact, nothing was attempted by the Albanian 
authorities to prevent the disaster. These grave 
omissions involve the international responsibility of 
Albania. 

The Court therefore reaches the conclusion that 
Albania is responsible under international law for the 
explosions which occurred on October 22nd, 1946, in 
Albanian waters, and for the damage and loss of 
human life which resulted from them, and that there 
is a duty upon Albania to pay compensation to the 
United Kingdom. 

In the final submissions contained in its oral reply, 
the United Kingdom Government asked the Court 



135 

to give judgment that, as a result of the breach by 
the Albanian Government of its obligations under 
international law, it had sustained damages amount- 
ing to £875,000. 

In the last oral statement submitted in its name, 
the Albanian Government, for the first time, asserted 
that the Court would not have jurisdiction, in virtue 
of the Special Agreement to assess the amount of 
compensation. No reason was given in support of 
this new assertion, and the United Kingdom Agent 
did not ask leave to reply. The question of the 
Court's jurisdiction was not argued between the 
Parties. 

In the first question of the Special Agreement the 
Court is asked: 

(i) Is Albania under international law responsible 
for the explosions and for the damage and loss of 
human life which resulted from them, and 

(ii) is there any duty to pay compensation ? 

This text gives rise to certain doubts. If point (i) 
is answered in the affirmative, it follows from the 
establishment of responsibility that compensation is 
due, and it would be superfluous to add point (ii) 
unless the Parties had something else in mind than a 
mere declaration by the Court that compensation is 
due. It would indeed be incompatible with the 
generally accepted rules of interpretation to admit 
that a provision of this sort occurring in a special 
agreement should be devoid of purport or effect. In 
thi& connexion, the Court refers to the views ex- 
pressed by the Permanent Court of International 
Justice with regard to similar questions of interpre- 
tation. In Advisory Opinion No. 13 of July 23rd 
1926, that Court said (Series B., No. 13, p. 19): 
"But, so far as concerns the specific question of com- 
petence now pending, it may suffice to observe that 
the Court, in determining the nature and scope of a 



136 

measure, must look to its practical effect rather than 
to the predominant motive that may be conjectured 
to have inspired it." In its Order of August 19th, 
1929, in the Free Zones case, the Court said (Series 
A., No. 22, p. 13): "in case of doubt, the clauses of 
a special agreement by which a dispute is referred to 
the Court must, if it does not involve doing violence 
to their terms, be construed in a manner enabling the 
clauses themselves to have appropriate effects". 

The Court thinks it necessary to refer to the dif- 
ferent stages of the procedure. In its Resolution of 
April 9th, 1947, the Security Council recommended 
that the two Governments should immediately refer 
"the dispute" to the Court. This Resolution had 
without doubt for its aim the final adjustment of 
the whole dispute. In pursuance of the Resolution, 
the Government of the United Kingdom filed an 
Application in which the Court was asked, inter 
alia, to "determine the reparation or compensation", 
and in its Memorial that Government stated the 
various sums claimed. The Albanian Government 
thereupon submitted a Preliminary Objection, which 
was rejected by the Court by its Judgment of March 
25th, 1948. Immediately after this judgment was 
delivered, the Agents of the Parties notified the Court 
of the conclusion of a Special Agreement. Com- 
menting upon this step taken by the Parties, the 
Agent of the Albanian Government said that in the 
circumstances of the present case a special agreement 
on which "the whole procedure" should be based was 
essential. He further said [translation]: "As I have 
stated on several occasions, it has always been the 
intention of the Albanian Government to respect the 
decision taken by the Security Council on April 9th, 
1947, in virtue of which the present Special Agree- 
ment is submitted to the International Court of 
Justice." 



137 

Neither the Albanian nor the United Kingdom 
Agent suggested in any way that the Special Agree- 
ment had limited the competence of the Court in 
this matter to a decision merely upon the principle 
of compensation or that the United Kingdom Gov- 
ernment had abandoned an important part of its 
original claim. The main object both Parties had in 
mind when they concluded the Special Agreement was 
to establish a complete equality between them by 
replacing the original procedure based on a unilateral 
Application by a procedure based on a Special Agree- 
ment. There is no suggestion that this change as 
to procedure was intended to involve any change 
with regard to the merits of the British claim as 
originally presented in the Application and Me- 
morial. Accordingly, the Court, after consulting 
the Parties, in its Order of March 26th, 1948, main- 
tained the United Kingdom's Memorial, filed pre- 
viously, "with statements and submissions". These 
submissions included the claim for a fixed sum of 
compensation. 

The subsequent attitude of the Parties shows that 
it was not their intention, by entering into the Special 
Agreement, to preclude the Court from fixing the 
amount of the compensation. In its Reply (para- 
graph 71) the United Kingdom Government main- 
tained the submissions contained in paragraph 96 
of its Memorial, including the claim for a fixed 
amount of reparation. This claim was expressly 
repeated in the final United Kingdom submissions. 
In paragraph 52 of its Counter-Memorial, the Al- 
banian Government stated that it had no knowledge 
of the loss of human life and damage to ships, but 
it did not contest the Court's competence to decide 
this question. In the Rejoinder, paragraph 96, that 
Government declared that, owing to its claim for 
the dismissal of the case, it was unnecessary for it to 

855422—50 10 



138 

examine the United Kingdom's claim for reparation. 
[Translation.] "It reserves the right if need be, to 
discuss this point which should obviously form the 
subject of an expert opinion." Having regard to 
what is said above as to the previous attitude of that 
Government, this statement must be considered as 
an implied acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction to 
decide this question. 

It may be asked why the Parties, when drafting 
the Special Agreement, did not expressly ask the 
Court to assess the amount of the damage, but used 
the words: "and is there any duty to pay compensa- 
tion?" It seems probable that the explanation is to 
be found in the similarity between this clause and 
the corresponding clause in the second part of the 
Special Agreement: "and is there any duty to give 
satisfaction?" 

The Albanian Government has not disputed the 
competence of the Court to decide what kind of 
satisfaction is due under this part of the Agreement. 
The case was argued on behalf of both Parties on 
the basis that this question should be decided by the 
Court. In the written pleadings, the Albanian Gov- 
ernment contended that it was entitled to apologies. 
During the oral proceedings, Counsel for Albania 
discussed the question whether a pecuniary satisfac- 
tion was due. As no damage was caused, he did 
not claim any sum of money. He concluded trans- 
lation]: "What we desire is the declaration of the 
Court from a legal point of view." 

If, however, the Court is competent to decide 
what kind of satisfaction is due to Albania under the 
second part of the Special Agreement, it is difficult 
to see why it should lack competence to decide the 
amount of compensation which is due to the United 
Kingdom under the first part. The clauses used in 
the Special Agreement are parallel. It cannot be 



139 

supposed that the Parties, while drafting these 
clauses in the same form, intended to give them 
opposite meanings — the one as giving the Court 
jurisdiction, the other as denying such jurisdiction. 

As has been said above, the Security Council, in 
its Resolution of April 9th, 1947, undoubtedly in- 
tended that the whole dispute should be decided by 
the Court. If, however, the Court should limit 
itself to saying that there is a duty to pay compensa- 
tion without deciding what amount of compensation 
is due, the dispute would not be finally decided. An 
important part of it would remain unsettled. As 
both Parties have repeatedly declared that they 
accept the Resolution of the Security Council, such a 
result would not conform with their declarations. 
It would not give full effect to the Resolution, but 
would leave open the possibility of a further dispute. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court has arrived 
at the conclusion that it has jurisdiction to assess the 
amount of the compensation. This cannot, how- 
ever, be done in the present Judgment. The Al- 
banian Government has not yet stated which items, 
if any, of the various sums claimed it contests, and 
the United Kingdom Government has not submitted 
its evidence with regard to them. 

The Court therefore considers that further pro- 
ceedings on this subject are necessary; the order and 
time-limits of these proceedings will be fixed by the 
Order of this date. 

* * * * * 

In the second part of the Special Agreement, the 
following question is submitted to the Court: 

(2) Has the United Kingdom under international law violated 
the sovereignty of the Albanian People's Republic by reason of 
the acts of the Royal Navy in Albanian waters on the 22nd 



140 



October and on the 12th and 13th November 1946 and is there 
any duty to give satisfaction? 

The Court will first consider whether the sov- 
ereignty of Albania was violated by reason of the 
acts of the British Navy in Albanian waters on 
October 22nd, 1946. 

On May 15th, 1946, the British cruisers Orion and 
Superb, while passing southward through the North 
Corfu Channel, were fired at by an Albanian battery 
in the vicinity of Saranda. It appears from the re- 
port of the commanding naval officer dated May 
29th, 1946, that the firing started when the ships had 
already passed the battery, and were moving away 
from it; that from 12 to 20 rounds were fired; that 
the firing lasted 12 minutes and ceased only when the 
ships were out of range; but that the ships were not 
hit although there were a number of "shorts" and of 
"overs". An Albanian note of May 21st states that 
the Coastal Commander ordered a few shots to be 
fired in the direction of the ships "in accordance with 
a General Order founded on international law". 

The United Kingdom Government at once pro- 
tested to the Albanian Government, stating that in- 
nocent passage through straits is a right recognized 
by international law. There ensued a diplomatic 
correspondence in which the Albanian Government 
asserted that foreign warships and merchant vessels 
had no right to pass through Albanian territorial 
waters without prior notification to, and the permis- 
sion of, the Albanian authorities. This view was 
put into effect by a communication of the Albanian 
Chief of Staff, dated May 17th, 1946, which pur- 
ported to subject the passage of foreign warships and 
merchant vessels in Albanian territorial waters to 
previous notification to and authorization by the 
Albanian Government. The diplomatic correspond- 
ence continued, and culminated in a United Kingdom 



141 



note of August 2nd, 1946, in which the United King- 
dom Government maintained its view with regard to 
the right of innocent passage through straits forming 
routes for international maritime traffic between two 
parts of the high seas. The note ended with the 
warning that if Albanian coastal batteries in the 
future opened fire on any British warship passing 
through the Corfu Channel, the fire would be 
returned. 

The contents of this note were, on August 1st, 
communicated by the British Admiralty to the 
Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, with the in- 
struction that he should refrain from using the 
Channel until the note had been presented to the 
Albanian Government. On August 10th, he re- 
ceived from the Admiralty the following telegram: 
"The Albanians have now received the note. North 
Corfu Strait may now be used by ships of your fleet, 
but only when essential and with armament in fore 
and aft position. If coastal guns fire at ships passing 
through the Strait, ships should fire back." On 
September 21st, the following telegram was sent by 
the Admiralty to the Commander-in-Chief, Mediter- 
ranean: "Establishment of diplomatic relations with 
Albania is again under consideration by His Majesty's 
Government who wish to know whether the Albanian 
Government have learnt to behave themselves. In- 
formation is requested whether any ships under your 
command have passed through the North Corfu 
Strait since August and, if not, whether you intend 
them to do so shortly." The Commander-in-Chief 
answered the next day that his ships had not done 
so yet, but that it was his intention that Mauritius 
and Leander and two destroyers should do so when 
they departed from Corfu on October 22nd. 

It was in such circumstances that these two 
cruisers together with the destroyers Saumarez and 



142 



Volage were sent through the North Corfu Strait on 
that date. 

The Court will now consider the Albanian con- 
tention that the United Kingdom Government vio- 
lated Albanian sovereignty by sending the warships 
through this Strait without the previous authoriza- 
tion of the Albanian Government. 

It is, in the opinion of the Court, generally recog- 
nized and in accordance with international custom 
that States in time of peace have a right to send their 
warships through straits used for international navi- 
gation between two parts of the high seas without 
the previous authorization of a coastal State, pro- 
vided that the passage is innocent. Unless other- 
wise prescribed in an international convention, there 
is no right for a coastal State to prohibit such passage 
through straits in time of peace. 

The Albanian Government does not dispute that 
the North Corfu Channel is a strait in the geographi- 
cal sense; but it denies that this Channel belongs to 
the class of international highways through which 
a right of passage exists, on the grounds that it is 
only of secondary importance and not even a neces- 
sary route between two parts of the high seas, and 
that it is used almost exclusively for local traffic to 
and from the ports of Corfu and Saranda. 

It may be asked whether the test is to be found in 
the volume of traffic passing through the Strait or in 
its greater or lesser importance for international 
navigation. But in the opinion of the Court the 
decisive criterion is rather its geographical situation 
as connecting two parts of the high seas and the fact 
of its being used for international navigation. Nor 
can it be decisive that this Strait is not a necessary 
route between two parts of the high seas, but only 
an alternative passage between the iEgean and the 
Adriatic Seas. It has nevertheless been a useful 



143 

route for international maritime traffic. In this 
respect, the Agent of the United Kingdom Govern- 
ment gave the Court the following information relat- 
ing to the period from April 1st, 1936, to December 
31st, 1937: "The following is the total number of 
ships putting in at the Port of Corfu after passing 
through or just before passing through the Channel. 
During the period of one year nine months, the total 
number of ships was 2,884. The flags of the ships 
are Greek, Italian, Roumanian, Yugoslav, French, 
Albanian and British. Clearly, very small vessels 
are included, as the entries for Albanian vessels are 
high, and of course one vessel may make several 
journeys, but 2,884 ships for a period of one year nine 
months is quite a large figure. These figures relate 
to vessels visited by the Customs at Corfu and so do 
not include the large number of vessels which went 
through the Strait without calling at Corfu at all." 
There were also regular sailings through the Strait 
by Greek vessels three times weekly, by a British 
ship fortnightly, and by two Yugoslav vessels weekly 
and by two others fortnightly. The Court is further 
informed that the British Navy has regularly used 
this Channel for eighty years or more, and that it has 
also been used by the navies of other States. 

One fact of particular importance is that the North 
Corfu Channel constitutes a frontier between Albania 
and Greece, that a part of it is wholly within the 
territorial waters of these States, and that the Strait 
is of special importance to Greece by reason of the 
traffic to and from the port of Corfu. 

Having regard to these various considerations, the 
Court has arrived at the conclusion that the North 
Corfu Channel should be considered as belonging to 
the class of international highways through which 
passage cannot be prohibited by a coastal State in 
time of peace. 



144 



On the other hand, it is a fact that the two coastal 
States did not maintain normal relations, that 
Greece had made territorial claims precisely with 
regard to a part of Albanian territory bordering on 
the Channel, that Greece had declared that she con- 
sidered herself technically in a state of war with 
Albania, and that Albania, invoking the danger of 
Greek incursions, had considered it necessary to take 
certain measures of vigilance in this region. The 
Court is of opinion that Albania, in view of these 
exceptional circumstances, would have been justified 
in issuing regulations in respect of the passage of 
warships through the Strait, but not in prohibiting 
such passage or in subjecting it to the requirement, 
of special authorization. 

For these reasons the Court is unable to accept the 
Albanian contention that the Government of the 
United Kingdom has violated Albanian sovereignty 
by sending the warships through the Strait without 
having obtained the previous authorization of the 
Albanian Government. 

In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to con- 
sider the more general question, much debated by 
the Parties, whether States under international law 
has a right to send warships in time of peace through 
territorial waters not included in a strait. 

The Albanian Government has further contended 
that the sovereignty of Albania was violated because 
the passage of the British warships on October 22nd, 
1946, was not an innocent passage. The reasons 
advanced in support of this contention may be 
summed up as follows: The passage was not an 
ordinary passage, but a political mission; the ships 
were manoeuvring and sailing in diamond combat 
formation with soldiers on board; the position of 
the guns was not consistent with innocent passage; 
the vessels passed with crews at action stations; the 



145 

number of the ships and their armament surpassed 
what was necessary in order to attain their object 
and showed an intention to intimidate and not merely 
to pass; the ships had received orders to observe and 
report upon the coastal defences and this order was 
carried out. 

It is shown by the Admiralty telegram of Septem- 
ber 21st, cited above, and admitted by the United 
Kingdom Agent, that the object of sending the war- 
ships through the Strait was not only to carry out a 
passage for purposes of navigation, but also to test 
Albania's attitude. As mentioned above, the Al- 
banian Government, on May 15th, 1946, tried to 
impose by means of gunfire its view with regard to 
the passage. As the exchange of diplomatic notes 
did not lead to any clarification, the Government of 
the United Kingdom wanted to ascertain by other 
means whether the Albanian Government would 
maintain its illegal attitude and again impose its 
view by firing at passing ships. The legality of this 
measure taken by the Government of the United 
Kingdom cannot be disputed, provided that it was 
carried out in a manner consistent with the require- 
ments of international law. The "mission" was 
designed to affirm a right which had been unjustly 
denied. The Government of the United Kingdom 
was not bound to abstain from exercising its right 
of passage, which the Albanian Government had 
illegally denied. 

It remains, therefore, to consider whether the 
manner in which the passage was carried out was con- 
sistent with the principle of innocent passage and to 
examine the various contentions of the Albanian 
Government in so far as they appear to be relevant. 

When the Albanian coastguards at St. George's 
Monastery reported that the British warships were 
sailing in combat formation and were manoeuvring, 



146 

they must have been under a misapprehension. It 
is shown by the evidence that the ships were not 
proceeding in combat formation, but in line, one after 
the other, and that they were not manoeuvring until 
after the first explosion. Their movements thereafter 
were due to the explosions and were made necessary 
in order to save human life and the mined ships. It 
is shown by the evidence of witnesses that the con- 
tention that soldiers were on board must be due to a 
misunderstanding probably arising from the fact that 
the two cruisers carried their usual detachment of 
marines. 

It is known from the above-mentioned order issued 
by the British Admiralty on August 10th, 1946, that 
ships, when using the North Corfu Strait, must pass 
with armament in fore and aft position. That this 
order was carried out during the passage on Octo- 
ber 22nd is stated by the Commander-in-Chief, 
Mediterranean, in a telegram of October 26th to the 
Admiralty. The guns were, he reported, "trained 
fore and aft, which is their normal position at sea in 
peace time, and were not loaded". It is confirmed 
by the commanders of Saumarez and Volage that the 
guns were in this position before the explosions. The 
navigating officer on board Mauritius explained that 
all guns on that cruiser were in their normal stowage 
position. The main guns were in the line of the ship, 
and the anti-aircraft guns were pointing outwards 
and up into the air, which is the normal position of 
these guns on a cruiser both in harbour and at sea. 
In the light of this evidence, the Court cannot accept 
the Albanian contention that the position of the guns 
was inconsistent with the rules of innocent passage. 

In the above-mentioned telegram of October 26th, 
the Commander-in-Chief reported that the passage 
"was made with ships at action stations in order that 
they might be able to retaliate quickly if fired upon 



147 

again". In view of the firing from the Albanian 
battery on May 15th, this measure of precaution 
cannot, in itself, be regarded as unreasonable. But 
four warships — two cruisers and two destroyers — 
passed in this manner, with crews at action stations, 
ready to retaliate quickly if fired upon. They passed 
one after another through this narrow channel, close 
to the Albanian coast, at a time of political tension in 
this region. The intention must have been, not only 
to test Albania's attitude, but at the same time to 
demonstrate such force that she would abstain from 
firing again on passing ships. Having regard, how- 
ever, to all the circumstances of the case, as de- 
scribed above, the Court is unable to character- 
ize these measures taken by the United Kingdom 
authorities as a violation of Albania's sovereignty. 

The Admiralty Chart, Annex 21 to the Memorial, 
shows that coastal defences in the Saranda region had 
been observed and reported. In a report of the com- 
mander of Folage, dated October 23rd, 1946 — a re- 
port relating to the passage on the 22nd — it is stated: 
"The most was made of the opportunities to study 
Albanian defences at close range. These included, 
with reference to XCU . . . ." — and he then gives a 
description of some coastal defences. 

In accordance with Article 49 of the Statute of the 
Court and Article 54 of its Rules, the Court requested 
the United Kingdom Agent to produce the docu- 
ments referred to as XCU for the use of the Court. 
Those documents were not produced, the Agent 
pleading naval secrecy; and the United Kingdom 
witnesses declined to answer questions relating to 
them. It is not therefore possible to know the real 
content of these naval orders. The Court cannot, 
however, draw from this refusal to produce the orders 
any conclusions differing from those to which the 
actual events gave rise. The United Kingdom Agent 



148 

stated that the instructions in these orders related 
solely to the contingency of shots being fired from the 
coast — which did not happen. If it is true, as the 
commander of Voltage said in evidence, that the 
orders contained information concerning certain posi- 
tions from which the British warships might have 
been fired at, it cannot be deduced therefrom that 
the vessels had received orders to reconnoitre Al- 
banian coastal defences. Lastly, as the Court has 
to judge of the innocent nature of the passage, it 
cannot remain indifferent to the fact that, though 
two warships struck mines, there was no reaction, 
either on their part or on that of the cruisers that 
accompanied them. 

With regard to the observations of coastal defences 
made after the explosions, these were justified by the 
fact that two ships had just been blown up and that, 
in this critical situation, their commanders might fear 
that they would be fired on from the coast, as on 
May 15th. 

Having thus examined the various contentions of 
the Albanian Government in so far as they appear 
to be relevant, the Court has arrived at the conclusion 
that the United Kingdom did not violate the sover- 
eignty of Albania by reason of the acts of the British 
Navy in Albanian waters on October 22nd, 1946. 



In addition to the passage of the United Kingdom 
warships on October 22nd, 1946, the second question 
in the Special Agreement relates to the acts of the 
Royal Navy in Albanian waters on November 12th 
and 13th, 1946. This is the minesweeping operation 
called "Operation Retail" by the Parties during the 
proceedings. This name will be used in the present 
Judgment. 

After the explosions of October 22nd, the United 



149 

Kingdom Government sent a note to the Albanian 
Government, in which it announced its intention to 
sweep the Corfu Channel shortly. The Albanian 
reply, which was received in London on October 31st, 
stated that the Albanian Government would not give 
its consent to this unless the operation in question 
took place outside Albanian territorial waters . Mean- 
while, at the United Kingdom Governments request, 
the International Centre Mine Clearance Board de- 
cided, in a resolution of November 1st, 1946, that 
there should be a further sweep of the Channel, sub- 
ject to Albania's consent. The United Kingdom 
Government having informed the Albanian Govern- 
ment, in a communication of November 10th, that 
the proposed sweep would take place on November 
12th, the Albanian Government replied on the 11th, 
protesting against this "unilateral decision of His 
Majesty's Government". It said it did not consider 
it inconvenient that the British fleet should undertake 
the sweeping of the channel of navigation, but added 
that, before sweeping was carried out, it considered 
it indispensable to decide what area of the sea should 
be deemed to constitute this channel, and proposed 
the establishment of a Mixed Commission for the 
purpose. It ended by saying that any sweeping 
undertaken without the consent of the Albanian 
Government outside the channel thus constituted, 
i.e., inside Albanian territorial waters where foreign 
warships have no reason to sail, could only be con- 
sidered as a deliberate violation of Albanian territory 
and sovereignty. 

After this exchange of notes, "Operation Retail" 
took place on November 12th and 13th. Commander 
Mestre, of the French Navy, was asked to attend as 
observer, and was present at the sweep on November 
13th. The operation was carried out under the pro- 
tection of an important covering force composed of 



150 

an aircraft carrier, cruisers and other war vessels. 
This covering force remained throughout the opera- 
tion at a certain distance to the west of the Channel, 
except for the frigate St. Bride's Bay, which was 
stationed in the Channel south-east of Cape Kiephali. 
The sweep began in the morning of November 13th, 
at about 9 o'clock, and ended in the afternoon near 
nightfall. The area swept was Albanian territorial 
waters, and within the limits of the channel previous- 
ly swept. 

The United Kingdom Government does not dis- 
pute that "Operation Retail" was carried out against 
the clearly expressed wish of the Albanian Govern- 
ment. It recognizes that the operation had not 
the consent of the international mine clearance 
organizations, that it could not be justified as the 
exercise of a right of innocent passage, and lastly 
that, in principle, international law does not allow 
a State to assemble a large number of warships in 
the territorial waters of another State and to carry 
out minesweeping in those waters. The United 
Kingdom Government states that the operation was 
one of extreme urgency, and that it considered itself 
entitled to carry it out without anybody's consent. 

The United Kingdom Government put forward 
two reasons in justification. First, the Agreement 
of November 22nd, 1945, signed by the Govern- 
ments of the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet 
Union and the United States of America, author- 
izing regional mine clearance organizations, such as 
the Mediterranean Zone Board, to divide the sectors 
in their respective zones amongst the States con- 
cerned for sweeping. Relying on the circumstance 
that the Corfu Channel was in the sector allotted to 
Greece by the Mediterranean Zone Board on Novem- 
ber 5th, i.e., before the signing of the above-men- 
tioned Agreement, the United Kingdom Government 



151 

put forward a permission given by the Hellenic Gov- 
ernment to resweep the navigable channel. 

The Court does not consider this argument 
convincing. 

It must be noted that, as the United Kingdom 
Government admits, the need for resweeping the 
Channel was not under consideration in November 
1945; for previous sweeps in 1944 and 1945 were 
considered as having effected complete safety. As a 
consequence, the allocation of the sector in question 
to Greece, and, therefore, the permission of the 
Hellenic Government which is relied on, were both 
of them merely nominal. It is also to be remarked 
that Albania was not consulted regarding the alloca- 
tion to Greece of the sector in question, despite the 
fact that the Channel passed through Albanian 
territorial waters. 

But, in fact, the explosions of October 22nd, 1946, 
in a channel declared safe for navigation, and one 
which the United Kingdom Government, more than 
any other government, had reason to consider safe, 
raised quite a different problem from that of a routine 
sweep carried out under the orders of the mineclear- 
ance organizations. These explosions were sus- 
picious; they raised a question of responsibility. 

Accordingly, this was the ground on which the 
United Kingdom Government chose to establish its 
main line of defence. According to that Govern- 
ment, the corpora delicti must be secured as quickly 
as possible, for fear they should be taken away, 
without leaving traces, by the authors of the mine- 
laying or by the Albanian authorities. This justi- 
fication took two distinct forms in the United King- 
dom Government's arguments. It was presented 
first as a new and special application of the theory of 
intervention, by means of which the State interven- 
ing would secure possession of evidence in the 



152 

territory of another State, in order to submit it to 
an international tribunal and thus facilitate its task. 

The Court cannot accept such a line of defence. 
The Court can only regard the alleged right of inter- 
vention as the manifestation of a policy of force, 
such as has, in the past, given rise to most serious 
abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the present 
defects in international organization, find a place in 
international law. Intervention is perhaps still less 
admissible in the particular form it would take here; 
for, from the nature of things, it would be reserved 
for the most powerful States, and might easily lead 
to perverting the adminstration of international 
justice itself. 

The United Kingdom Agent, in his speech in reply, 
has further classified "Operation Retail" among 
methods of self-protection or self-help. The Court 
cannot accept this defence either. Between inde- 
pendent States, respect for territorial sovereignty is 
an essential foundation of international relations. 
The Court recognizes that the Albanian Govern- 
ment's complete failure to carry out its duties after 
the explosions, and the dilatory nature of its diplo- 
matic notes, are extenuating circumstances for the 
action of the United Kingdom Government. But 
to ensure respect for international law, of which it 
is the organ, the Court must declare that the action 
of the British Navy constituted a violation of 
Albanian sovereignty. 

This declaration is in accordance with the request 
made by Albania through her Counsel, and is in 
itself appropriate satisfaction. 

The method of carrying out "Operation Retail" 
has also been criticized by the Albanian Government, 
the main ground of complaint being that the United 
Kingdom, on that occasion, made use of an unnec- 
essarily large display of force, out of proportion to 



153 

the requirements of the sweep. The Court thinks 
that this criticism is not justified. It does not con- 
sider that the action of the British Navy was a 
demonstration of force for the purpose of exercising 
political pressure on Albania. The responsible naval 
commander, who kept his ships at a distance from 
the coast, cannot be reproached for having employed 
an important covering force in a region where twice 
within a few months his ships had been the object 
of serious outrages. 

For these reasons, the Court, on the first question 
put by the Special Agreement of March 25 th, 1948, 
by eleven votes to five, 

Gives judgment that the People's Republic of 
Albania is responsible under international law for the 
explosions which occurred on October 22nd, 1946, in 
Albanian waters, and for the damage and loss of 
human life that resulted therefrom; and by ten votes 
to six, 

Reserves for further consideration the assessment 
of the amount of compensation and regulates the 
procedure on this subject by an Order dated this day; 

On the second question put by the Special Agree- 
ment of March 25th, 1948, by fourteen votes to two, 

Gives judgment that the United Kingdom did not 
violate the sovereignty of the People's Republic of 
Albania by reason of the acts of the British Navy in 
Albanian waters on October 22nd, 1946; and unani- 
mously 

Gives judgment that by reason of the acts of the 
British Navy in Albanian waters in the course of the 
Operation of November 12th and 13th, 1946, the 
United Kingdom violated the sovereignty of the 
People's Republic of Albania, and that this declara- 
tion by the Court constitutes in itself appropriate 
satisfaction. 

Done in French and English, the French text being 

855422—50 11 



154 

authorative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this 
ninth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and 
forty-nine, in three copies, one of which will be 
placed in the archives of the Court and the others 
transmitted to the Government of the United King- 
dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of 
the People's Republic of Albania respectively. 

(Signed) J. G. Guerrero, 

Acting President. 
(Signed) E. Hambro, 
Registrar. 

Judge Basdevant, President of the Court, whilst 
accepting the whole of the operative part of the 
Judgment, feels bound to state that he cannot accept 
the reasons given by the Court in support of its juris- 
diction to assess the amount of compensation, other 
reasons being in his opinion more decisive. 

Judge Zoricic declares that he is unable to agree 
either with the operative clause or with the reasons 
for the Judgment in the part relating to Albania's 
responsibility; the arguments submitted, and the 
facts established are not such as to convince him that 
the Albanian Government was, or ought to have 
been, aware, before November 13th, 1946, of the 
existence of the minefield discovered on that date. 
On the one hand, the attitude adopted by a govern- 
ment when confronted by certain facts varies accord- 
ing to the circumstances, to its mentality, to the 
means at its disposal and to its experience in the 
conduct of public affairs. But it has not been con- 
tested that, in 1946, Albania had a new Government 
possessing no experience in international practice. 
It is therefore difficult to draw any inferences what- 
ever from its attitude. Again, the conclusion of the 
Experts that the operation of laying the mines must 



155 

have been seen is subject to an express reservation: 
it would be necessary to assume the realization of 
several conditions, in particular the maintenance of 
normal look-out posts at Cape Kiephali, Denta Point 
and San Giorgio Monastery, and the existence of 
normal weather conditions at the date. But the 
Court knows neither the date on which the mines 
were laid nor the weather conditions prevailing on 
that date. Furthermore, no proof has been furnished 
of the presence of a look-out post on Denta Point, 
though that, according to the Experts, would have 
been the only post which would necessarily have 
observed the minelaying. On the other hand, the 
remaining posts would merely have been able to ob- 
serve the passage of the ships, and there is no evi- 
dence to show that they ought to have concluded 
that the ships were going to lay mines. According 
to the Experts, these posts could neither have seen 
nor heard the minelaying, because the San Giorgio 
Monastery was 2,000 m. from the nearest mine and 
Cape Kiephali was several kilometres away from it. 
As a result, the Court is confronted with suspicions, 
conjectures and presumptions, the foundations for 
which, in Judge Zoricic's view, are too uncertain to 
justify him in imputing to a State the responsibility 
for a grave delinquency in international law. 

Judge Alvarez, whilst concurring in the Judgment 
of the Court, has availed himself of the right con- 
ferred on him by Article 57 of the Statute and ap- 
pended to the Judgment a statement of his individual 
opinion. 

Judges Winiarski, Badawi Pasha, Krylov and 
Azevedo, and Judge ad hoc Ecer, declaring that they 
are unable to concur in the Judgment of the Court, 
have availed themselves of the right conferred on 
them by Article 57 of the Statute and appended to 



156 

the Judgment statements of their dissenting opinions. 

[Initialed] J. G. G. 
[Initialed] E. H. 

[Individual and dissentiiig opinions omitted.] 

2. United States Laws and Regulations 

a. Harbors Closed to Foreign Vessels 

Note. By an Act of 15 May 1820 (.3 Stat. 597) it was made unlawful for a 
period of two years "for any foreign armed vessels to enter any harbour be- 
longing to the United States, excepting only those of Portland, Boston, New 
London, New York, Philadelphia, Norfolk, Smithville, in North Carolina, 
Charleston, and Mobile; unless when such vessels shall be forced in by distress, 
by the dangers of the sea, or by being pursued by an enemy, and be unable to 
make any of the ports above mentioned." The President was given authority 
to employ such part of the land and naval forces of the United States or the 
militia thereof as he might deem necessary to enforce these provisions. 

A report of 20 February 1904 by the General Board of the Navy, approved 
by the Secretary of the Navy, stated, 

"The General Board is of the opinion that with the exception of the below- 
named ports, no restrictions should be placed on the visits of foreign men-of-war 
or other public vessels, either as to number or period of stay, in ports within the 
United States or under their control; neither should it be required that previous 
permission must be obtained. 

"The General Board is further of the opinion that before visiting any of the 
following-named ports all foreign men-of-war or public vessels should be re- 
quired to ask permission from the Secretary of the Navy, through their respective 
Ministers, and the State Department: 

"Tortugas, Florida. 

"Great Harbor, Culebra. 

"Guantanamo, Cuba. 

"Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 

"Guam. 

"Subig Bay, Philippine Islands. 
"It is, of course, understood that any foreign vessel, before entering the 
actual limits of a navy-yard in any port of the United States, would first apply 
for permission" [3 Laws Relating to the Navy (1945), p. 1865]. 

This report was transmitted by the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary 
of State, who by a circular of 2 March 1904 instructed the diplomatic officers 
of the United States to communicate the report to the governments to which 
they were accredited, "with a view to indicate the present policy of this Govern- 
ment regarding the visits of foreign men-of-war to the ports of the United States 
or those under the control of this Government." In a supplemental report of 
28 April 1904, also approved by the Secretary of the Navy, the General Board 
recommended that the ports and anchorages of the Kiska Islands be added to the 
list. This report was likewise transmitted by the Secretary of the Navy to the 
Secretary of State, who by a circular of 30 April 1904 instructed the diplomatic 
officers of the United States to inform the governments to which they were 



157 



accredited "that the ports and anchorages of the Kiska Islands in the Aleutian 
Archipelago are added to the list of ports which foreign men-of-war must obtain 
previous permission to visit." 

On 23 September 1912 the' President of the United States issued Executive 
Order No. 1613, reproduced below, prohibiting foreign vessels of commerce 
as well as foreign national vessels from entering seven named harbors, except by 
special authority of the Navy Department in each case. This order is still in 
force . 

Executive Order, 23 September 1912 [3 Laws Relating to the Navy (1945), 

p. 1864.] 

It is hereby ordered that the following named harbors, viz; 

Tortugas, Florida; 

Great Harbor, Culebra; 

Guantanamo Naval Station, Cuba; 

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; 

Guam; 

Subig Bay, Philippine Islands; 

Kiska, Aleutian Islands; 

are not, and that they shall not be made, subports of entry for foreign vessels 
of commerce, and that said harbors shall not be visited by any commercial or 
privately owned vessel of foreign registry, nor by any foreign national vessel, 
except by special authority of the United States Navy Department in each case. 

b. Defensive Sea Areas 

Note. By an Act approved on 4 March 1917, Section 44 of the Criminal 
Code was amended to authorize the President by executive order to establish 
defensive sea areas from time to time as may be necessary in his discretion for 
the purposes of national defense, and any violation of the President's order or 
regulation governing persons or vessels within the limits of such defensive sea 
areas was made punishable. 

Thirty-three defensive sea areas were created by five executive orders in 1917 
and 1918; the texts of these orders have been reproduced in Naval War College, 
International Law Documents, 1917, pp. 233, 240, 241; 1918, p. 164. These 
defensive sea areas were discontinued by an executive order of 25 January 1919. 
Some of the areas included parts of the high seas outside of territorial waters. 
The regulations governing these areas provided for the designation of entrances 
for incoming and outgoing vessels in the neighborhood of each defensive sea 
area; vessels desiring to cross such areas were required to proceed to the vicinity 
of the entrance and to receive the authorization of a harbor-entrance patrol 
before entering. Vessels othet than public vessels of the United States were 
forbidden to cross a defensive sea area except between sunset and sunrise, or 
during the prevalance of weather conditions which rendered navigation difficult 
or dangerous. Masters of vessels or other persons within the vicinity of a 
defensive sea area who violated the regulations were subject to prosecution. 
Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1917, p. 237; 1943, p. 66. 

Information is given here concerning the defensive sea areas established since 
1918; in some cases they were designated as "naval defensive sea areas." Reg- 
ulations applying to defensive sea areas generally were promulgated by Execu- 
tive Order No. 8978 of 16 December 1941 (6 F. R. 6469), and by Executive 
Order No. 9275 of 23 November 1942 (7 F. R. 9767). 



158 



(1) Defensive Sea Area in Chesapeake Bay l 



(Executive Order No. 5710, 14 September 1931; in force from 5 October to 

20 October 1931.) 

[Area:] Waters within a radius of 5 miles of latitude 37 43'12", 
longitude 76°04 / in Chesapeake Bay near the southern end of 
Tangier Sound. 

[Regulations:] No . . . vessel shall navigate within the areas 
herein created except such as are authorized by the Secretary 
of the Navy in connection with national defense operations or 
for other governmental purposes: Provided, however, That 
surface vessels following regular channels may navigate within 
the aforesaid defensive sea area but in no event within a radius 
of 2 miles of the point above stated. 

1 A naval air-space reservation was established at the same time in the air- 
space over the same area. 

(2) Defensive Sea Area off the Coast of North Carolina 

(Executive Order No. 5786, 30 January 1932, Laws ReL ting to the Navy (1945), 

p. 1883; still in force.) 

[Area:] The following bounded waters off the coast of North 
Carolina and southeast of Kittyhawk Coast Guard Station, com- 
prising approximately two-thirds of a square mile . . . 

Beginning at a point of latitude 36°03' N., longitude 75°37 / 
W.; thence to a point latitude 36°03 / N., longitude 75°36 / W. 
thence to a point latitude 36°02'28" N., longitude 75°36 / W. 
thence to a point latitude 36°02 / N., longitude 75°36'8" W. 
and thence to point of beginning. 

[Regulation:] At no time shall vessels or other craft be navi- 
gated within the area above defined except such as are author- 
ized by the Secretary of the Navy. 

(3) San Clemente Island Naval Defensive Sea Area 

(Executive Order No. 7747, 20 November 1937, 2 F. R. 2534; amended by 
No. 8536, 6 September 1940, 5 F. R. 3606, and by No. 9787, 5 October 1946, 
11 F. R. 11556; discontinued by No. 9894, 23 September 1947, 12 F. R. 

6353.) 

[Area:] The area of water surrounding San Clemente Island, 
California, extending from low-water mark out for a distance of 
three hundred yards beyond low-water mark, except in Wilscn 
Cove, where it is to extend one hundred yards beyond low-water 
mark, and including that part of Pyramid Cove lying north 
of a line between a point one thousand yards south of China 



159 

Point light and a point three hundred yards south of White- 
washed Rock, 

[Regulations:] At no time shall vessels or other craft be navi- 
gated within the defensive sea area above defined except such as 
are authorized by the Secretary of the Navy. 

(4) Pearl Harbor Defensive Sea Area 

(Executive Order No. 8143, 26 May 1939, 4 F. R. 2179; still in force.) 

[Area:] The area of water in Pearl Harbor, Island of Oahu, 
Territory of Hawaii, lying between extreme high-water mark 
and the sea and in and about the entrance channel to said 
harbor, within an area bounded by the extreme high-water 
mark, a line bearing south true from the southwestern corner 
of the Puuloa Naval Reservation, a line bearing south true from 
Ahua Point Lighthouse, and a line bearing west true from a 
point three nautical miles due south true from Ahua Point 
Lighthouse. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall any person (other than persons 
on public vessels of the United States) enter the defensive sea 
area above defined, nor shall any vessels or other craft (other 
than public vessels of the United States) be navigated within 
said defensive sea areas, unless authorized by the Secretary of 
the Navy. 

(5) Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area 

(Executive trder No. 8403, 7 May 1940, 5 F. R. 1661, superseded by No. 
8953, 27 November 1941, 6 F. R. 6123, discontinued by No. 9720, 8 May 
1946, 11 F. R. 5105.) 

[Area:] All United States territorial waters of Los Angeles- 
Long Beach Harbor and its approaches and tributaries from the 
contour line of extreme high water on the shores of these waters, 
as shown on the latest U. S. C. and G. S. charts, to the following 
seaward limits: 

A line running along bearing 160° true from Whites Point, 
California, in approximate Latitude 33°42'61 // North, Longitude 
118°19 / West, to the seaward limit of United States territorial 
waters; 

A line running along bearing 210° true from a point on the 
shore of Huntington Beach, California, in Latitude 33°39 / 47 // 
North, Longitude 118°00'41" West, to the seaward limit of 
United States territorial waters; and 

A line running along the seaward limit of United States ter- 
ritorial waters between the above-described bearing lines. 



160 

[Regulations:] A vessel not proceeding under United States 
naval or other United States authorized supervision shall not 
enter or navigate the waters of the Los Angeles-Long Beach 
Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area except during the daylight, 
when good visibility conditions prevail, and then only after 
specific permission has been obtained. Advance arrangements 
for entry into or navigation through or within the Los Angeles- 
Long Beach Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area must be made, 
prefereably by application to a United States Naval District 
Headquarters in advance of sailing, or by radio or visual com- 
munication on approaching the seaward limits of the area. If 
radio telegraphy is used, the call "NQO" shall be made on a 
frequency of 500 kcs, and permission to enter the port requested. 
The name of the vessel, purpose of entry, and name of the 
master must be given in the request. If visual communications 
are used, the procedure shall be essentially the same. 

A vessel entering or navigating the waters of the Los Angeles- 
Long Beach Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area does so at its own 
risk. 

Even though permission has been obtained, it is incumbent 
upon a vessel entering the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor 
Naval Defensive Sea Area to obey any further instructions re- 
ceived from the United States Navy or other United States 
authority. 

A vessel may expect supervision of its movements within the 
Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area, 
either through surface craft or aircraft. Such controlling sur- 
face craft and aircraft shall be identified by a prominent display 
of the LInion Jack. 

The loading or unloading by vessels of oil fuel or other in- 
flammable or explosive materials shall be under the control of 
the local naval authority, who shall require such loading or 
unloading to be accomplished in such manner and at such times 
as will safeguard the other activities within the Los Angeles- 
Long Beach Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area essential to the 
national defense. 

These regulations are subject to amplification by the local 
United States naval authority as necessary to meet local cir- 
cumstances and conditions. 

When a United States Maritime Control Area is established 
adjacent to or abutting upon the Los Angeles-Long Beach 
Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area, it shall be assumed that per- 
mission to enter, and other instructions issued by proper author- 



161 



ity, shall apply to any one continuous passage through or within 
both areas. 

Any master of a vessel or other person within the Los Angeles- 
Long Beach Harbor Naval Defensive Sea Area who shall dis- 
regard these regulations, or shall fail to obey an order of United 
States naval authority to stop or heave-to, or shall perform any 
act threatening the efficiency of mines or other defenses or the 
safety of navigation, or shall take any action inimical to the 
interest of the United States, may be detained therein by force 
of arms and renders himself liable to attack by the armed forces 
of the United States, and liable to prosecution as provided for 
in section 44 of the Criminal Code, as amended (U. S. C, title 
18, sec. 96). 

(6) Kiska Island Naval Defensive Sea Area; Unalaska Island 
Naval Defensive Sea Area 2 

(Executive Order No. 8680, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1014, corrected by No. 
8729, 2 April 1941, 6 F. R. 1791; still in force.) 

[Area:] The territorial waters between the extreme high-water 
marks and the three-mile marine boundaries surrounding the 
islands of Kiska and Unalaska. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall any person, other than persons 
on public vessels of the United States, enter either of the naval 
defensive sea areas herein set apart and reserved, nor shall any 
vessel or other craft, other than public vessels of the United 
States, be navigated into either of said areas, unless authorized 
by the Secretary of the Navy. 

2 A naval airspace reservation was established at the same time in the airspace 
over the same areas. 

(7) Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area 3 

(Executive Order No. 8681, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1014; still in force.) 

[Area:] The territorial waters within Kaneohe Bay between 
extreme high-water mark and the sea and in and about the 
entrance channel within a line bearing northeast true extending 
three nautical miles from Kaoio Point, a line bearing northeast 
true extending four nautical miles from Kapoho Point, and a 
line joining the seaward extremities of the two above-described 
bearing lines. 

[Regulations identical with No. 6 above.] 

3 A naval airspace reservation was established at the same time in the airspace 
over the same area. 

(8) Palmyra Island Naval Defensive Sea Area; Johnston Island 



162 

Naval Defensive Sea Area; Midway Island Naval Defensive 
Sea Area; Wake Island Naval Defensive Sea Area; Kingman 
Reef Naval Defensive Sea Area 4 

(Executive Order No. 8682, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1014, corrected by No. 
8729, 2 April 1941, 6 F. R. 1791; still in force.) 

[Area:] The territorial waters between the extreme high-water 
marks and the three-mile marine boundaries surrounding the 
islands of Palmyra, Johnston, Midway, Wake, and Kingman 
Reef, in the Pacific Ocean. 

[Regulations identical with No. 6 above.] 

(9) Rose Island Naval Defensive Sea Area; Tutuila Island Naval 
Defensive Sea Area; Guam Island Naval Defensive Sea Area 4 

(Executive Order No. 8683, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1015, corrected by No. 
8729, 2 April 1941, 6 F. R. 1791; still in force.) 

[Areas:] The territorial waters between the extreme high- 
water marks and the three-mile marine boundaries surrounding 
the islands of Rose, Tutuila, and Guam, in the Pacifx Ocean. 

[Regulations identical with No. 6 above.] 

A naval airspace reservation was established at the same time in the airspace 
over the same areas. 

(10) Culebra Island Naval Defensive Sea Area 5 
[Executive Order No. 8684, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1016; still in force.] 

[Area:] The territorial waters between the extreme high-water 
mark and the three-mile marine boundary surrounding the 
island of Culebra, Puerto Rico. 

[Regulations identical with No. 6 above.] 

(11) Kodiak Island Naval Defensive Sea Area 5 
[Executive Order No. 8717, 22 March 1941, 6 F. R. 1621; still in force.] 

[Area:] The territorial waters between extreme high-water 
mark and the three-mile marine boundary adjacent to the 
eastern portion of Kodiak Island, Alaska, in and about Women's 
Bay to the westward within a line bearing true north and south 
tangent to the eastern extremity of High Island. 

[Regulations identical with No. 6 above.] 

(12) Subic Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area 5 

[Executive Order No. 8718, 22 March 1941, 6 F. R. 1621; discontinued by No. 
9720, 8 May 1946, 11 F. R. 5105.] 

[Area:] The territorial waters within Subic Bay, Philippine 
Islands, between extreme high-water mark and the sea and in 



163 



and about the entrance channel within a line bearing true south- 
west extending three nautical miles from Panibatujan Point, a 
line bearing true southwest extending three nautical miles from 
Sanpaloc Point, and a line joining the seaward extremities 
ofthe above two bearing lines. 
[Regulations identical with No. 6 above.] 

6 A naval airspace reservation was established at the same time in the airspace 
over the same area. 

(13) Guantanamo Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area 6 
[Executive Order No. 8749, 1 May 1941, 6 F. R. 2252; still in force.] 

[Area:] The territorial waters within Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
between high-water mark and the sea and in and about the 
entrance channel within a line bearing true south extending 
three nautical miles from the shore line of the eastern boundary 
of Guantanamo Naval Reservation, as laid down in the Agree- 
ment between the United States of America and the Republic of 
Cuba signed by the President of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and 
by the President of the United States on February 23, 1903, a 
line bearing true south extending three nautical miles from the 
shore line of the western boundary of said Naval Reservation, 
and a line joining the seaward extremities of the above two 
bearing lines. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall any vessel or other craft, other 
than public vessels of the United States and vessels engaged in 
Cuban trade, be navigated into Guantanamo Bay Naval De- 
fensive Sea Area, unless authorized by the Secretary of the 

Navy. 

At no time shall any aircraft, other than public aircraft of the 
United States, be navigated into Guantanamo Bay Naval 
Airspace Reservation, unless authorized by the Secretary of the 

Navy. 

6 A naval airspace reservation was established at the same time in the airspace 
over the same area. 

(14) Manila Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area 

[Executive Order No. 8853, 16 August 1941, 6 F. R. 4180; discontinued by No. 
9720, 8 May 1946, 11 F. R. 5105.] 

[Area:] All territorial waters of Manila Bay, Philippine 
Islands, and its approaches and tributaries from the contour 
line of extreme high water as shown on the latest U. S. C. and 
G. S. charts, to: 



164 



A line running southwest true from Luzon Point, in approxi- 
mate position, Latitude 14°27 / 40 ,/ North, Longitude 120°23'13" 
East to the seaward limit of territorial waters, thence south- 
easterly along the seaward limit of territorial waters to the 
parallel of Latitude 14°10'15" North, thence east along that 
parallel of Latitude to meet the short at Hamilo Point in ap- 
proximate Latitude 14°10'15" North, Longitude 120°34'24" 
East. 

[Regulations identical with No. 5 above, except that the paragraph beginning 
"The loading or unloading by vessels of oil fuel" is omitted.] 

(15) Portland, Maine, Defensive Sea Area; Portsmouth, New 
Hampshire, Defensive Sea Area; Narragansett Bay Defensive 
Sea Area; San Diego, California, Defensive Sea Area; San 
Francisco, California, Defensive Sea Area; Columbia River 
Entrance Defensive Sea Area; Strait of Juan de Fuca and 
Puget Sound Defensive Sea Area 

[Executive Order No. 8970, 11 December, 1941, 6 F. R. 6417, amended rs to 
Narragansett Bay by No. 9342, 19 May 1943, 8 F. R. 6647; discontinued as to 
Portland, Maine, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and Narragansett Bay by 
No. 9650, 29 October 1945, 10 F. R. 13431, and as to San Diego, San Fran- 
cisco, Coumbia River Entrance, and Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound 
by No. 9720, 8 May 1946, 11 F. R. 5105.] 
[The text is reproduced in Naval War College, International Law Documents, 

1943, p. 83.] 

(16) New York Harbor Defensive Sea Area; New London Defen- 
sive Sea Area; Delaware Bay and River Defensive Sea Area; 
Chesapeake Bay-Norfolk Defensive Sea Area; Charleston Har- 
bor Defensive Sea Area 

[Executive Order No. 8978, 16 December 1941, 6 F. R. 6469; discontinued by 
No. 9650, 29 October 1945, 10 F. R. 13431.] 

[Areas:] 

New York Harbor Defensive Sea Area 

All United States territorial waters of New York Harbor and 
its approaches and tributaries from the contour line of extreme 
high water on the shores of these waters as shown on the latest 
U. S. C. &G. S. Charts, to: 

A line from Rockaway Point Coast Guard Station, Pockaway 
Point, New York, to Ambrose Channel Lightship, thence to 
Navesink Lighthouse, Highlands, New Jersey. 

A line across the Raritan River at and following the Central 
Railroad of New Jersey Bridge from South Amboy to Perth 
Amboy, New Jersey. 



165 



The contour line of extreme high water following the western 
shore of Arthur Kill and Newark Bay. 

A line across the Passaic River at and following the Erie Rail- 
road Bridge, Arlington, New Jersey. 

A line across the Hackensack River at and following the Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Bridge near Anderson 
Creek, New Jersey. 

A line across the Hudson River at and following the Bear 
Mountain Bridge. 

A line across Long Island Sound from Sands Point Lighthouse. 
Long Island, to Execution Rocks Lighthouse, thence to Larch- 
mont, New York. 



•> 



New London Defensive Sea Area 

All United States territorial waters of Long Island Sound 
Block Island Sound, Thames River, Gardiners Bay, and their 
tributaries from the contour line of extreme high water on the 
shores of these waters as shown on the latest U. S. C. & G. S. 
Charts, to: 

A line from Montauk Point Lighthouse, Long Island to Block 
Island Southeast Lighthouse, thence to Point Judith Lighthouse 
Rhode Island. 

A line across the Thames River from shore to shore at and 
following the parallel of Latitude 41°26 r North. 

A line running from Black Point (Niantic Bay), Connecticut, 
to Orient Point, Long Island, thence to Long Beach Bar Light- 
house and thence to Cedar Point, Long Island. 

Delaware Bay and River Defensive Sea Area 

All United States territorial waters of Delaware Bay and its 
seaward approaches, Delaware River, and Schuylkill River, 
from the contour line of extreme high water on the shores of 
these waters as shown on the latest U. S. C. & G. S. Charts, to: 

A line running from Cape May East Jetty Light, Cape May, 
New Jersey, on bearing 147° true to the seaward limit of U. S. 
territorial waters, thence along the seaward boundary of ter- 
ritorial waters southwesterly to the parallel of Latitude 38°43' 
18" North, and thence west along this parallel of Latitude to the 
Tower, at Rehoboth, Delaware, in approximate position, 
Latitude 38°43'18", Longitude 75°04'38" West. 

A line across the Delaware River above Philadelphia, Penn- 
sylvania, at and following the Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge 
at Fisher Point, New Jersey. 



166 



A line across the Schuylkill River at and following Fairmount 
Dam. 

Chesapeake Bay-Norfolk Defensive Sea Area 

All United States territorial waters of Chesapeake Bay and 
its approaches; Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River, James River, 
York River, and their tributaries from the contour line of ex- 
treme high water on the shores of these waters as shown on the 
latest U. S. C. & G. S. Charts, to: 

A line running from the southernmost point of Cape Charles, 
Virginia, to Cape Charles Lighthouse on Smith Island, thence 
on a bearing 130° true to the seaward limit of U.S. territorial 
waters, thence southwesterly along the limit of territorial waters 
to the parallel of Latitude 36°51 / 15 // and thence west meeting 
the shore at the U.S. Coast Guard Station, Virginia Beach, Va. 

A line across the Southern Branch, Elizabeth River, from 
shore to shore along the parallel of Latitude 36°46 / North. 

A line across the James River at and following the James 
River Bridge, near Newport News, Virginia. 

A line across the York River, from shore to shore along the 
parallel of Latitude 37°20' North. 

A line running from New Point Comfort (Mobjack Bay), 
Virginia, along the parallel of Latitude 37°18 / North to the 
eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay at Westcott Point. 

Charleston Harbor Defensive Sea Area 

All United States territorial waters of Charleston Harbor and 
its seaward approaches; Cooper River, Ashley River, Wando 
River, and their tributaries from the contour line of extreme 
high water on the shores of these waters as shown on the latest 
U. S. C. &G. S. Charts, to: 

A line running from the Standpipe on Isle of Palms, South 
Carolina, on a bearing 180° to the seaward limit of U. S. ter- 
ritorial waters, thence along the seaward limit of territorial 
waters to the Latitude of Charleston Lighthouse (32°41 / 42 // 
North), thence west along that parallel of Latitude to Charleston 
Lighthouse, thence on a line bearing 308° true to the tank in 
Edgewater Park in Latitude 32°46'06" North, Longitude 
80°00'03" West. 

A line across the Ashley River, from shore to shore at and 
following the meridian of 80° West Longitude. 

A line across the Cooper River, from shore to shore at and 
following the parallel of Latitude 32°55' North. 

A line across the Wando River, from shore to shore at and 



167 

following the meridian of Longitude 79°52'43" West, to a point 
at Latitude 32°51'48", thence along bearing 136° true to the 
Standpipe on Isle of Palms. 

[Regulations identical with those in No. 14 above were made applicable 
by this executive order to all defensive sea areas. It was provided in addition 
that "Permission to enter or transit the Panama Canal shall, however, continue 
to be a separate procedure."] 

(17) Honolulu Defensive Sea Area 

[Executive Order No. 8987, 20 December 1941, 6 F. R. 6675; still in force.] 

[Area:] All United States territorial waters of Honolulu Har- 
bor, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, its approaches and tributaries 
from the contour line of extreme high water as shown on the 
latest U. S. C. and G. S. charts to: 

A line running south true from the shore at Koko Head, 
Oahu, along the meridian of Longitude 157°42' West, to the 
seaward limit of United States territorial waters; 

A line running south true from Ahua Point Lighthouse to the 
seaward limit of United States territorial waters; and 

A line running along the seaward limit of United States ter- 

torial waters between the above-described bearing lines. 

[Regulations identical with No. 9 above, except for the addition of the 
sentence: "This order shall not be construed as modifying in any way the procla- 
mation of the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii placing the territory of Hawaii 
under martial law."] 

(18) Matagorda Bay Defensive Sea Area 

[Executive Order No. 9168, 20 May 1942, 7 F. R. 3841; discontinued by 
No. 9648, 25 October 1945, 10 F. R. 13351.] 

[Area:] All territorial waters of Matagorda Bay, Texas, in- 
cluding Trepalacios Bay but not restricted thereto, together with 
all approaches thereto and tributaries thereof from the contour 
line of extreme high water as shown on the U. S. C. and G. S. 
chart No. 1284. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall vessels or other craft be navi- 
gated within such area unless specific permission therefor is 
first obtained, in the manner prescribed by him, from the 
Secretary of War or from the officer designated by him. Al- 
though such permission has been obtained, a vessel entering or 
navigating the waters of the Matagorda Bay Defensive Sea 
Area does so at its own risk, and shall obey all instructions 
received from the United States Army or other United States 
authority. 

The movements of vessels within the Matagorda Bay 



168 

Defensive Sea Area shall be subject to supervision, either 

through surface craft or aircraft. 

(19) Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound Defensive Sea Area 

[Executive Order No. 9266, 6 November 1942, 7 F. R. 9107; discontinued by 
No. 9650, 29 October 1947, 10 F. R. 13431.] 

[Area:] All United States territorial waters of Buzzards Bay 
and Vineyard Sound and their seaward approaches and tribu- 
taries from the contour line of extreme high water on the shores 
of these waters as shown on the latest U. S. C. & G. S. Charts to: 

A line running from the southernmost tip of Sakonnet Point; 

thence to Bell Buoy 2 off Schuyler Ledge in approximate 
position Latitude 41°26 , 24 ,/ North, Longitude 71°11'39" West; 

thence on a side line due south to approximate position Lati- 
tude 41°18 / 03 ,/ North, Longitude 71°11'39" West; 

thence due east to the southernmost tip of Squibnocket Point 
on Martha's Vineyard; 

thence along the western and northern shore line of Martha's 
Vineyard to West Chop Light; 

thence due north to the mainland in approximate Latitude 
41°32 , 36 ,/ North, Longitude 70°36'00" West. 

[Regulations identical with No. 9 above.] 

(20) Regulations Applicable to All Defensive Sea Areas 

[Executive Order Ne. 9275, 23 November 1942, 7 F. R. 9697; still in force.] 

1. No person shall have his possession within the limits of 
any defensive sea area, any camera or other device for taking 
pictures, or any film, plate or other device upon or out of which 
a photographic imprint, negative or positive, can be made, 
except in the performance of official duty or employment in 
connection with the national defense, or when authorized pur- 
suant to the provisions of the act approved June 25, 1942 
[56 Stat. 390], and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 

2. It shall be the duty of the master or officer in charge of 
any vessel to take custody of and safeguard all cameras or other 
devices for taking pictures, or film, plate or other device upon 
or out of which a photographic imprint, positive or negative, 
can be made, the possession of which is prohibited by this order, 
from any person, prior to the time any vessel enters any de- 
fensive sea area or upon the boarding by any person of any 
vessel while within a defensive sea area, and to retain custody 
thereof until such vessel is outside the defensive sea area or the 
person is about to disembark. 

3. There shall be prominently displayed on board all vessels, 



169 



except public war vessels of the United States manned by per- 
sonnel in the naval service, a printed notice containing the 
regulations herein prescribed. 

4. Any person violating section 1 hereof shall be liable to 
posecution as provided in section 44 of the Criminal Code, as 
amended. 

c. Maritime Control Areas 

Note. By six proclamations issued in 1941 and 1942, the President estab- 
lished seventeen Maritime Control Areas, some of which included areas of the 
high seas outside the limit of territorial waters. The President issued these 
proclamations in exercise of the authority vested in him as President, and as 
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and "in 
accordance with the principle of self-defense of the Law of Nations;" the proc- 
lamation establishing the Cristobal and Gulf of Panama Maritime Control 
Areas also referred to a request by the Government of Panama for "the coopera- 
tion of the Government of the United States in exercising control in Panamanian 
waters adjacent to the Panama Canal, in accordance with the joint obligation 
of the two countries under their General Treaty of March 2, 1936, and other- 
wise, to insure the effective protection of the said Canal." 7 

The proclamation establishing the Hawaiian Mari- 
time Control Area, reproduced here, served as a 
model for the others, but the phrase in paragraph five, 
"the law applicable to violations committed on the 
high seas being international law", was not repeated 
in other proclamations. Only the descriptions of 
other areas are reproduced. 

All of the Maritime Control Areas were discon- 
tinued in 1945 or 1946. 

(1) Hawaiian Maritime Control Area 

[Proclamation No. 2532, 27 December 1941, 55 Stat. 1713, discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.] 

Whereas the United States is now at war, and the 



7 Article 10 of the General Treaty of 2 March 1936 (U. S. Treaty Series, 
No. 945) provides: 

"In case of an international conflagration or the existence of any threat of 
aggression which would endanger the security of the Republic of Panama or the 
neutrality or security of the Panama Canal, the Governments of the United 
States of America and the Republic of Panama will take such measures of pre- 
vention and defense as they may consider necessary for the protection of their 
common interests. Any measures, in safeguarding such interests, which it shall 
appear essential to one Government to take, and which may affect the territory 
under the jurisdiction of the other Government, will be the subject of consulta- 
tion between the two Governments." 
855422—50 12 



170 

establishment of the maritime control area hereinafter described 
is necessary in the interests of national defense: 

Now, therefore, I, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, President 
of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority 
vested in me as President of the United States, and as Com- 
mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, 
and in accordance with the principle of self-defense of the 
Law of Nations, do hereby proclaim and establish the following- 
described area as the Hawaiian Maritime Control Area, and 
prescribe the following regulations for the control thereof: 

Hawaiian Maritime Control Area 

All waters contained within the area delimited by lines con- 
necting successively the following points. 

Latitude 22°30 / N. Longitude 158° W. 

Latitude 21° N. Longitude 155°30' W. 

Latitude 20°30' N. Longitude 155°30' W. 

Latitude 20° N. Longitude 156°30' W. 

Latitude 21° N. Longitude 159° W. 

Latitude 22° N. Longitude 159° W. 

Latitude 22°30' N. Longitude 158° W. 

Regulations for the Control of Hawaiian Maritime Control Area 

1. A vessel not proceeding under United States naval or 
other United States authorized supervision shall not enter or 
navigate the waters of the Hawaiian Maritime Control Area 
except during daylight, when good visibility conditions prevail, 
and then only after specific permission has been obtained. 
Advance arrangements for entry into or navigation through or 
within the said Area must be made, preferably by application 
at a United States Naval District Headquarters in advance of 
sailing, or by radio or visual communication on approaching the 
seaward limits of the area. If radio telegraphy is used, the call 
"NQO" shall be made on a frequency of 500 kcs, and permission 
to enter the port requested. The name of the vessel, purpose of 
entry, and name of master must be given in the request. If 
visual communications are used, the procedure shall be essen- 
tially the same. 

2. Even though permission has been obtained, it is incum- 
bent upon a vessel entering the said Area to obey any further 
instructions received from the United States Navy, or other 
United States authority. 

3. A vessel may expect supervision of its movements within 



171 



the said Area, either through surface craft or aircraft. Such 
controlling surface craft and aircraft shall be identified by a 
prominent display of the Union Jack. 

4. These regulations may be supplemented by regulations 
of the local United States naval authority as necessary to meet 
local circumstances and conditions. 

5. Should any vessel or person within the said Area disregard 
these regulations, or regulations issued pursuant hereto, or 
fail'to obey an order of the United States naval authority, or 
perform any act threatening the efficiency of mine or other 
defenses, or take any action therein inimical to the defense of 
the United States, such vessel or person may be subjected to the 
force necessary to require compliance, and may be liable to 
detention or arrest, or penalties or forfeiture, in accordance 
with law, the law applicable to violations committed on the 
high seas being international law. 

The Secretary of the Navy is charged with the enforcement 
of these regulations. 

(2) Cristobal Maritime Control Area 

[Proclamation No. 2536, 16 January 1942, 56 Stat. 1932; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.] 

[Area:] All waters contained within the seaward limit of an 
arc described with the western breakwater entrance light at 
Cristobal, Canal Zone, as a center, a radius of 36 sea miles, and 
meeting the shore line in the east in the vicinity of position 
Latitude 90°35' North, Longitude 79°21' West, and in the west 
in the vicinity of position Latitude 09°08 / North, Longitude 
80°29'West. ' 

(3) Gulf of Panama Maritime Control Area 

[Proclamation No. 2536, 16 January 1942, 56 Stat. 1932; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.] 

[Area:] All waters of the Gulf of Panama to the north of Lati- 
tude 8° North. 

(4) Boston Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2540, 10 February 1942, 56 Stat. 1936; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2663, 11 September 1945, 59 Stat. 881.) 

[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by lines running as 
follows: 

Beginning at the intersection of the western shore of Sandy 
Bay, Cape Ann, Massachusetts, and the parallel of Latitude 
42°40' North, in approximate Longitude 70°37'23" West; 



172 

thence along that parallel to Longitude 70°12 / 30 // West; 

thence along approximate true bearing 152° to position Lati- 
tude 42 o 00 , North, Longitude 69°44' West; and 

thence west true to the eastern shore of Cape Cod, Massa- 
chusetts, in approximate Longitude 72°01 / 10 // West. 

(5) San Francisco Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2543, 25 March 1942, 56 Stat. 1941; discontinued by Proc- 
lamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by lines running 
as follows: 

Beginning at Point Reyes Lighthouse, California, in approxi- 
mate position Latitude 37°59'45" North, Longitude 123°01'20" 
West; 

thence along approximate true bearing 225° to position Lati- 
tude 37°49'08" North, Longitude 123°14'32" West; 

thence along approximate true bearing 145°30 / to position 
Latitude 37°20' North, Longitude 122°49 , 22 // West; and 

thence east true to the shore in approximate Longitude 122° 
24'08"West. 

(6) Columbia River Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2543, 25 March 1942, 56 Stat. 1941; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] All waters contained within the seaward limit of an 
arc described with North Head Light, Washington, as a centre, 
a radius of fifty nautical miles, and meeting the shore line in the 
south in the vicinity of position Latitude 45°28 / 15 // North, 
Longitude 123°58'15 // West, and in the north in the vicinity of 
position Latitude 47°08 / 50 ,/ North, Longitude 124°10 , 50 ,/ West. 

(7) Puget Sound Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2543, 25 March 1942, 56 Stat. 1941; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] All waters, excluding Canadian territorial waters, 
contained within the seaward limit of an arc described with 
Cape Flattery Light, Washington, as a centre, a radius of fifty 
nautical miles, and meeting the shore line in the south in the 
vicinity of position Latitude 47°35 / North, Longitude 124°22' 
West, and meeting the seaward limit of Canadian territorial 
waters in the north in the vicinity of position Latitude 48°56 / 
30" North, Longitude 125°40'30" West. 

(8) Southeastern Alaska Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2543, 25 March 1942, 56 Stat. 1941; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 



173 



[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by lines running as 
follows: 

Beginning at a point on the international boundary line be- 
tween the Territory of Alaska, and Canada at the southwesterly 
entrance of the Portland Canal, in approximate position Lati- 
tude 54°44' North, Longitude 130°43' West; 

thence along said boundary line and the seaward extension 
thereof an approximate true bearing 265°30 / to position Latitude 
54°35 / North, Longitude 134°29' West; 

thence along approximate true bearing 326°24 / to position 
Latitude 58°33' North, Longitude 139°14'30" West; and 

thence along approximate true bearing 85°30' to the north 
cape of Lituya Bay, Alaska, in approximate position Latitude 
58°36 , 40 ,/ North, Longitude 137°40'20" West. 

(9) Prince William Sound Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2543, 25 March 1942, 56 Stat. 1941; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by lines running as 
follows: 

Beginning at Pinnacle Rock Lighthouse on the southwesterly 
end of Cape St. Elias, Alaska, in approximate position Latitude 
59°48' North, Longitude 144°36' West; 

thence approximately south to position Latitude 59°00 / 
North, Longitude 144°36' West; 

thence approximately west true to position Latitude 59°00' 
North, Longitude 150°26' West; and 

thence approximately north true to the southwesterly end of 
Outer Island of the Pye Islands group in approximate position 
Latitude 59°20'35" North, Longitude 150°26' West. 

(10) Kodiak Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2543, 25 March 1942, 56 Stat. 1941; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] All waters contained within the seaward limit of a 
circle described with Kodiak, Alaska, as a center, a radius of 
fifty nautical miles, and meeting the shore line in the north at 
Point Banks, in the vicinity of position Latitude 58°36' North, 
Longitude 152°22 / West; in the south in the vicinity of position 
Latitude 57°05' North, Longitude 153°13 / West; in the west 
in the vicinity of position Latitude 57°31 / North, Longitude 
153°52 / West; and in the north in the vicinity of position Lati- 
tude 58°36' North, Longitude 152°36' West. 



174 



(11) Unalaska Maritime Control Area 



(Proclamation No. 2543, 25 March 1942, 56 Stat. 1941; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] All waters contained within the seaward limit of two 
arcs described as follows: 

The first arc described with Unalaska, Alaska, as a center, a 
radius of fifty nautical miles, and meeting the shore line in the 
vicinity of positions Latitude 53°17 / 30 // North, Longitude 
167°35' West; Latitude 54°23 / North, Longitude 167°43' West; 
Latitude 53°29' North, Longitude 167°49' West; Latitude 
53°3r30" North, Longitude 167°51' West; and intersecting the 
second arc in the vicinity of positions Latitude 54°40 / North, 
Longitude 166°05 / West and Latitude 53°35' North, Longitude 
165°10' West. 

The second arc described with Scotch Cap Lighthouse on the 
southwesterly end of Chumiak Island, Alaska, as a center, a 
radius of fifty nautical miles, and meeting the shore line in the 
vicinity of positions Latitude 54°41'15" North, Longitude 
163°24 , 15 ,/ West and Latitude 55°02'10" North, Longitude 
163°48 / 30' / West, and intersecting the first arc in the positions 
stated in the preceding paragraph. 

(12) Casco Bay Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2569, 21 October 1942, 56 Stat. 1978; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2663, 11 September 1945, 59 Stat. 881.) 

[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by lines running as 
follows: 

Beginning at a point on Small Point, Cape Small in approxi- 
mate position Latitude 43°42'06" North, Longitude 69°50 , 03 // 
West; 

thence due south through Fuller Rock Light to an approxi 
mate position Latitude 43°32'19" North, Longitude 69°50 / 03 ,/ 
West; and 

thence due west to a point on Adam Head, Richmond Island, 
in approximate position Latitude 43 32'19" North, Longitude 
70°13'48" West. 

(13) Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2569, 21 October 1942, 56 Stat. 1978; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2663, 11 September 1945, 59 Stat. 881.) 

[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by lines running as 
follows: 



175 

Beginning at Cape Neddick Light in approximate position 
Latitude 43°09'54" North, Longitude 70°35 , 30 ,/ West; 

thence southeasterly to Boon Island Light in approximate 
position Latitude 43°07 / 16 ,/ North, Longitude 70°28'36" West; 

thence due south to approximate position Latitude 42°55'05" 
North, Longitude 70°28'36" West; and 

thence due west to a point on Great Boars Head in approxi- 
mate position Latitude 42°55 / 05 // North, Longitude 70°47'42" 
West. 

(14) Cape Hatter as Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2569, 21 October 1942, 56 Stat. 1978; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2663, 11 September 1945, 59 Stat. 881.) 

[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by lines running as 
follows: 

Beginning at a point on the beach near Swash Inlet in approxi- 
mate position Latitude 34°58 / 02 // North, Longitude 76°10' West; 

thence southeasterly to position Latitude 34°53 / North, 
Longitude 75°58 / West; 

thence due east to position Latitude 34°53' North, Longitude 
75°31 / West; 

thence northeasterly to position Latitude 35°05 / North, 
Longitude 75°22' West; 

thence due north to position Latitude 35°08 / North, Longi- 
tude 75°22' West; 

thence northwesterly to position Latitude 35°17 / North, 
Longitude 75°28' West; and 

thence due west to the beach in approximate position Latitude 
35°17' North, Longitude 75°30'43" West. 

(15) Key West Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2569, 21 October 1942, 56 Stat. 1978; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2663, 11 September 1945, 59 Stat. 881.) 

[Area:] All waters within the area enclosed by the following 
parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude: 

Between the parallels of Latitude 24°36 / North and Latitude 
25°10' North; and 

between the meridians of Longitude 81°23 / West and Longi- 
tude 82°10 / West. 

(16) Los Angeles Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2569, 21 October 1942, 56 Stat. 1978; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] That sea area lying within the following boundaries: 



176 

From Point Dume, California, to the Northwesterly point of 
Santa Catalina Island; 

thence along the Northern shore of Santa Catalina Island to 
the Southeasterly point of that island; 

from the Southeasterly point of Santa Catalina Island to 
Dana Point, California. 

(17) San Diego Maritime Control Area 

(Proclamation No. 2573, 17 November 1942, 56 Stat. 1985; discontinued by 
Proclamation No. 2691, 8 May 1946, 60 Stat. 1347.) 

[Area:] That sea area lying within the following boundaries: 

From Point La Jolla, California, on a line approximately 
249° true to a point Latitude 32°45 / North, Longitude 117 35' 
West; 

thence along a line approximately 160° true to a point Lati- 
tude 32°32 / North, Longitude 117°29'20" West; 

thence Easterly to the United States-Mexico border. 

d. Customs Enforcement Areas 

Note: Section la of the Anti-Smuggling Act of 5 August 1935 (49 Stat. 517) 
provides: 

"Whenever the President finds and declares that at any place or within any 
area on the high seas adjacent to but outside customs waters any vessel or vessels 
hover or are being kept off the coast of the United States and that, by virtue of 
the presence of any such vessel or vessels at such place or within such area, 
the unlawful introduction or removal into or from the United States of any 
merchandise or person is being or may be occasioned, promoted, or threatened, 
the place or area so found and declared shall constitute a customs-enforcement 
area for the pruposes of this Act. Only such waters on the high seas shall be 
within a customs-enforcement area as the President finds and declares are in 
such proximity to such vessel or vessels that such unlawful introduction or 
removal of merchandise or persons may be carried on by or to or from such 
vessel or vessels. No customs-enforcement area shall include any waters more 
than one hundred nautical miles from the place or immediate area where the 
President declares such vessel or vessels are hovering or are being kept and, 
notwithstanding the foregoing provision, shall not include any waters more than 
fifty nautical miles outwards from the outer limit of customs waters. Whenever 
the President finds that, within any customs-enforcement area, the circum- 
stances no longer exist which gave rise to the declaration of such area as a 
customs-enforcement area, he shall so delcare, and thereafter, and until a fur- 
ther finding and declaration is made under this subsection with respect to waters 
within such area, no waters within such area shall constitute a part of such 
customs-enforcement area. The provisions of law applying to the high seas 
adjacent to customs waters of the United States shall be enforced in a customs 
enforcement area upon any vessel, merchandise, or person found therein." 

Section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended in 1935 (49 Stat. 521), 
defines "customs waters" as follows: 



177 



"The term 'customs waters' means, in the case of a foreign vessel subject to a 
treaty or other arrangement between a foreign government and the United 
States enabling or permitting the authorities of the United States to board, 
examine, search, seize, or otherwise to enforce upon such vessel upon the high 
seas the laws of the United States, the waters within such distance of the coast 
of the United States as the said authorities are or may be so enabled or permitted 
by such treaty or arrangement and, in the case of every other vessel, the waters 
within four leagues of the coast of the United States." 

In 1935 the President issued five proclamations establishing customs-enforce- 
ment areas; all of them were discontinued by an order of 3 September 1946 
(11 F. R. 9857). The text of the first proclamation, which served as a model 
for the others, is reproduced in full; only the descriptions of other areas are 
given. 

(1) Customs Enforcement Area No. 1 

[Proclamation No. 2131,7 August 1935, 49 Stat. 3462; discontinued by order, 
3 September 1946, 11 F. R. 9857.] 

Whereas section 1 (a) of the Anti-Smuggling Act, approved 
August 5, 1935 (Public No. 238, 74th Congress), provides, 
among other things, that whenever the President finds and 
declares that at any place or within any area on the high seas 
adjacent to but outside customs waters any vessel or vessels 
hover or are being kept off the coast of the United States, and 
that, by virtue of the presence of any such vessel or vessels at 
such place or within such area, the unlawful introduction or 
removal into or from the United States of any merchandise or 
person is being or may be occasioned, promoted, or threatened, 
the place or area so found and declared shall constitute a 
customs-enforcement area for the purposes of this Act: 

Now, therefore, I, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of 
the United States of America, do hereby find and declare: 

1. That vessels hover or are being kept off the coast of the 
United States on the high seas adjacent to but outside customs 
waters within the area described as follows: 

That area of waters of the North Atlantic Ocean bounded by: 

(a) The arc of a circle described with a radius of one hundred 
nautical miles from a center at Latitude forty degrees thirty- 
seven minutes North (40°-37' N) Longitude sixty-nine degrees 
twenty-three minutes West (69°-23 / W). 

(6) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc of 
the circle described in (a), which is the locus of points twelve 
nautical miles offshore from low water mark of the coast of the 
United States. 

(c) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc of 
the circle described in (a) , which is the locus of points sixty-two 



178 

nautical miles offshore from low water mark of the coast of the 
United States. 

2. That the place or immediate area within the area described 
in paragraph 1 where such vessels are hovering or are being 
kept is: 

That place or immediate area on the North Atlantic Ocean at 
Latitude forty degrees thirty-seven minutes North (40°-37 / N) 
Longitude sixty-nine degrees twenty-three minutes West 
(69°-23' W). 

3. That the area described in paragraph 1 does not include 
any waters more than 100 nautical miles from the place or imme- 
diate area where such vessels are and are hereby declared to be 
hovering or kept, and does not include any waters more than 
50 nautical miles outwards from the outer limit of customs 
waters. 

4. That, by virtue of the presence of such vessels within the 
area described in paragraph 1, the unlawful introduction or 
removal into or from the United States of merchandise or per- 
sons is being or may be occasioned, promoted, or threatened. 

5. That all the waters within the area described in paragraph 
1 are in such proximity to such vessels that such unlawful 
introduction or removal of merchandise or persons may be 
carried on by or to or from such vessels. 

And I do hereby proclaim that under the terms of the said 
Anti-Smuggling Act, the area described in paragraph 1 consti- 
tutes a customs-enforcement area, to be designated as Customs 
Enforcement Area No. 1, and the provisions of law applying to 
the high seas adjacent to customs waters of the United States 
shall be enforced in such area upon any vessel, merchandise, 
or person found therein. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington this 7" day of August in the 
year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and thirty- 
[seal] five, and of the Independence of the United States of 
America the one hundred and sixtieth. 



Franklin D. Roosevelt. 



By the President: 
Cordell Hull 

Secretary of State. 



179 



(2) Customs Enforcement Area No. 2 

(Proclamation No. 2132, 27 August 1935, 49 Stat. 3464; discontinued by 
order; 3 September 1946, 11 F. R. 9857.) 

[Area:] That area of waters of the North Atlantic Ocean 
bounded by: 

(a) The arc of a circle described with a radius of one hundred 
nautical miles from a center at Latitude forty degrees twenty 
minutes North (40°-20 / N) Longitude seventy-two degrees 
twenty-eight minutes West (72°-28 / W). 

(b) That part of an iregular curve, included within the arc of 
the circle described in (a), which is the locus of outermost points 
twelve nautical miles offshore from low water mark of the coast 
of the United States. 

(c) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc of 
the circle described in (a), which is the locus of outermost points 
sixty-two nautical miles offshore from low water mark of the 
coast of the United States. 

(3) Customs Enforcement Area No. 3 

(Proclamation No. 2149, 7 December 1935, 49 Stat. 3484; discontinued by 
order; 3 September 1946, 11 F. R. 9857.) 

[Area:] That area of waters of the Gulf of Mexico bounded by: 

(a) The arc of a circle described with a radius of one hundred 
nautical miles from a center at Latitude twenty-eight degrees 
forty-seven minutes North (28°-47 / N) Longitude ninety-one 
degrees forty-five minutes West (91°-45 / W). 

(b) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc 
of the circle described in (a), which is the locus of outermost 
points twelve nautical miles offshore from low water mark of the 
coast of the United States. 

(c) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc 
of the circle described in (a), which is the locus of outermost 
points sixty-two nautical miles offshore from low water mark of 
the coast of the United States. 

(4) Customs Enforcement Area No. 4 

(Proclamation No. 2150, 7 December 1935, 49 Stat. 3485; discontinued by 
order; 3 September 1946, 11 F. R. 9857.) 

[Area:] That area of waters of the Gulf of Mexico bounded by: 

(a) The arc of a circle described with a radius of one hundred 

nautical miles from a center at Latitude twenty-eight degrees 

thirty-one minutes North (28°-31 / N) Longitude eighty-nine 

degrees fifty-three minutes West (89°-53 / ) W). 



180 

(b) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc 
of the circle described in (a), which is the locus of outermost 
points twelve nautical miles offshore from low water mark of 
the coast of the United States. 

(c) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc 
of the circle described in (a), which is the locus of outermost 
points sixty-two nautical miles offshore from low water mark of 
the coast of the United States. 

(5) Customs Enforcement Area No. 5 

(Proclamation No. 2152, 27 December 1935, 49 Stat. 3488; discontinued by 
order, 3 September 1946, F. R. 9857.) 

[Area:] That area of waters of the North Atlantic Ocean 
bounded by: 

(a) The arc of a circle described with a radius of one hundred 
nautical miles from a center at Latitude forty-three degrees 
eight minutes North (43°-08 / N) Longitude sixty-nine degrees 
seventeen minutes West (69°-17 / W). 

(b) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc of 
the circle described in (a) , which is the locus of outer most points 
twelve nautical miles offshore from low water mark of the coast 
of the United States. 

(c) That part of an irregular curve, included within the arc 
of the circle described in (a), which is the locus of outer most 
points sixty-two nautical miles ofTshore from low water mark 
of the coast of the United States. 

e. Laws Concerning the Pollution of Navigable 

Waters 

Note. A Preliminary Conference on Oil Pollution of Navigable Waters was 
held in Washington in 1926 by representatives of the United States, Belgium, 
the British Empire, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, 
Norway, Spain and Sweden. The Conference prepared a draft convention 
which provided that the Governments might establish areas in waters within 
fifty nautical miles of their coasts, or under special conditions within 150 nauti- 
cal miles, within which the discharge of oil from sea-going vessels other than 
war vessels should be prohibited. United States Foreign Relations, 1926, I, 
pp. 245-247. The draft convention was never brought into force. In 1935 
the League of Nations set up a Committee of Experts which drafted a conven- 
tion closely following the Washington draft (League of Nations Document C. 
449. M. 235. 1935. VIII), but it was never broueht into force. 

(1) Act of 29 June 1888 
(25 Stat. 209.) 
That the placing, discharging, or depositing, by any process 
or in any manner, of refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders, mud, sand, 



181 

dredgings, sludge, acid, or any other matter of any kind, other 
than that flowing from streets, sewers, and passing therefrom 
in a liquid state, in the tidal waters of the harbor of New York, 
or its adjacent or tributary waters, or in those of Long Island 
Sound, within the limits which shall be prescribed by the super- 
visor of the harbor, is hereby strictly forbidden, and every such 
act is made a misdemeanor, and every person engaged in or who 
shall aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of this section, 
shall upon conviction, be punishable by fine or imprisonment, 
or both, such fine to be not less than two hundred and fifty 
dollars nor more than two thousand five hundred dollars and the 
imprisonment to be not less than thirty days nor more than one 
year, either or both united, as the judge before whom conviction 
is obtained shall decide, one half of said fine to be paid to the 
person or persons giving information which shall lead to con- 
viction of this misdemeanor. 

(2) Act of 3 March 1899, Section 13 
(30 Stat. 1152.) 

Sec. 13. That it shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or 
deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or 
deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating 
craft of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing es- 
tablishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind 
or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and 
sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state, into any navi- 
gable water of the United States, or into any tributary of any 
navigable water from which the same shall float or be washed 
into such navigable water; and it shall not be lawful to deposit, 
or cause, suffer, or procure to be deposited material of any kind 
in any place on the bank of any navigable water, or on the bank 
of any tributary or any navigable water, where the same shall be 
liable to be washed into such navigable water, either by ordi- 
nary or high tides, or by storms of floods, or otherwise, whereby 
navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed: Provided, 
That nothing herein contained shall extend to, apply to, or 
prohibit the operations in connection with the improvement of 
navigable waters or construction of public works, considered 
necessary and proper by the United States officers supervising 
such improvement or public work: And provided further, That 
the Secretary of War, whenever in the judgment of the Chief of 
Engineers anchorage and navigation will not be injured thereby, 
may permit the deposit of any material above mentioned in 



182 

navigable waters, within the limits to be denned and under 
conditions to be prescribed by him, provided application is 
made to him prior to depositing such material; and whenever 
any permit is so granted the conditions thereof shall be strictly 
complied with, and any violation thereof shall be unlawful. 

(3) Oil Pollution Act, 7 June 1924 {excerpts) 
(43 Stat. 604-605.) 
Sec. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise 
requires — 

(a) The term "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, 
including fuel oil, oil sludge, and oil refuse; 

(b) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, 
corporation, or association; any owner, master, officer or em- 
ployee of a vessel; and any officer, agent, or employee of the 
United States; 

(c) The term "coastal navigable waters of the United States" 
means all portions of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction 
of the United States, and all inland waters navigable in fact in 
which the tide ebbs and flows; 

(d) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of War. — 
(43 Stat. 604-605, ch. 316.) 

Sec. 3. That, except in case of emergency imperiling life or 
property, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and 
except as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary as hereinafter authorized, it shall be unlawful for any 
person to discharge, or suffer, or permit the discharge of oil by 
any method, means, or manner into or upon the coastal navi- 
gable waters of the United States from any vessel using oil as 
fuel for the generation of propulsion power, or any vessel carry- 
ing or having oil thereon in excess of that necessary for its 
lubricating requirements and such as may be required under the 
laws of the United States and the rules and regulations pre- 
scribed thereunder. The Secretary is authorized and em- 
powered to prescribe regulations permitting the discharge of oil 
from vessels in such quantities, under such conditions, and at 
such times and places as in his opinion will not be deleterious 
to health or sea food, or a menace to navigation, or dangerous 
to persons or property engaged in commerce on such waters, and 
for the loading, handling, and unloading of oil. 

3. Claims to the Continental Shelf 

Note. Interest in the continental shelf has been expressed in various quar- 
ters over the past thirty years. As nearly as 1916 Spanish and Argentine 



183 



experts urged that national control should be extended over the waters above 
the continental shelf in order to prevent the depletion of fisheries, and the 
Imperial Russian Government claimed certain uninhabited islands north of 
Siberia on the ground that they formed "the northern continuation of the 
Siberian continental shelf"; the Russian claim was repeated by the Soviet Gov- 
ernment in 1924. Concern for the protection of fisheries on the continental 
shelf was also expressed by the Portuguese representative in the League of 
Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International 
Law in 1927. 

Fresh interest in the continental shelf has been manifested in the declarations 
made on behalf of nine states during the past four years. In addition to the 
declarations reproduced here, a draft law on the subject was submitted to the 
Cuban Congress in December 1946; and in Mexico, amendments to the Consti- 
tution have been proposed which would incorporate the substance of the 
Mexican declaration. 

On the emergence of the continental shelf as a legal concept, see Richard 
Young, "Recent Developments with Respect to the Continental Shelf." 42 
American Journal of International Law (1948), p.p. 849-857. 

A. United States of America: Presidential Proclamation, 

28 September 1945 
(Proclamation No. 2667, 10 F. R. 12303.) 

Whereas the Government of the United States of America, 
aware of the long range world-wide need for new sources of 
petroleum and other minerals, holds the view that efforts to 
discover and make available new supplies of these resources 
should be encouraged; and 

Whereas its competent experts are of the opinion that such 
resources underlie many parts of the continental shelf off the 
coasts of the United States of America, and that with modern 
technological progress their utilization is already practicable or 
will become so at an early date; and 

Whereas recognized jurisdiction over these resources is re- 
quired in the interest of their conservation and prudent utiliza- 
tion when and as development is undertaken; and 

Whereas it is the view of the Government of the United States 
that the exercise of jurisdiction over the natural resources of the 
subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf by the contiguous 
nation is reasonable and just, since the effectiveness of measures 
to utilize or conserve these resources would be contingent upon 
cooperation and protection from the shore, since the continental 
shelf may be regarded as an extension of the land-mass of the 
coastal nation and thus naturally appurtenant to it, since these 
resources frequently form a seaward extension of a pool or de- 
posit lying within the territory, and since self-protection compels 
the coastal nation to keep close watch over activities off its 



184 



shores which are of the nature necessary for utilization of these 
resources; 

Now, therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United 
States of America, do hereby proclaim the following policy of 
the United States of America with respect to the natural re- 
sources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf. 

Having concern for the urgency of conserving and prudently 
utilizing its natural resources, the Government of the United 
States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed 
of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to 
the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United 
States, subject to its jurisdiction and control. In cases where 
the continental shelf extends to the shores of another State, or 
is shared with an adjacent State, the boundary shall be deter- 
mined by the United States and the State concerned in accord- 
ance with equitable principles. The character as high seas of 
the waters above the continental shelf and the right to their free 
and unimpeded navigation are in no way thus aifected. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States of America to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this 28th day of September, 
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and forty-five, and of 
the Independence of the United States of America the one 
hundred and seventieth. 

Harry S. Truman 

By the President: 
Dean Acheson, 

Acting Secretary of State. 
[seal] 

b. United States of America: Executive Order, 
28 September 1945 
(Executive Order No. 9633, 10 F. R. 12305.) 

By virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me as 
President of the United States, it is ordered that the natural 
resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf be- 
neath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United 
States declared this day by proclamation to appertain to the 
United States and to be subject to its jurisdiction and control, 
be and they are hereby reserved, set aside, and placed under the 
jurisdiction and control of the Secretary of the Interior for 
administrative purposes, pending the enactment of legislation 
in regard thereto. Neither this Order nor the aforesaid procla- 



185 

mation shall be deemed to affect the determination by legislation 
or judicial decree of any issues between the United States and 
the several states, relating to the ownership or control of the 
subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf within or outside of 
the three-mile limit. 

Harry S. Truman 
The White House, 

September 28, 1945, 

c. United Mexican States: Presidental Declaration, 

29 October 1945 

{El Universal, Mexico City, 30 October 1945, pp. 1, 17.) 
[Translation] 

The experience of recent years has demonstrated the increas- 
ing necessity that States should preserve that natural wealth 
which in past times, for different reasons, has been outside their 
control and complete utilization. 

As is well known, the lands which constitute the continental 
masses in general do not rise abruptly from the great oceanic 
deeps, but rather from a submarine platform which is called the 
continental shelf, which is delimited by a two-hundred-meter 
isobath (that is to say, the line which unites points of that 
depth), from the edges of which the slope descends sharply or 
gradually toward the deep zones in the middle of the seas; this 
platform manifestly constitutes an integral part of the con- 
tinental countries, and it is neither reasonable nor prudent nor 
possible that Mexico should be unconcerned with the jurisdic- 
tion, utilization and control over it where it corresponds to Mexi- 
can territories in both oceans. 

It is known at present, as the result of divers scientific in- 
vestigations, that in said continental shelf there exists natural 
wealth, liquid and gaseous minerals, phosphates, calcium com- 
pounds, hydrocarbons, etc., of incalculable value, whose legal 
incorporation into the patrimony of the nation is of the greatest 
importance, and cannot be delayed. 

On the other hand it is of equal urgency that the Mexican 
State, which has been endowed by nature with fishing resources 
of extraordinary richness, like those found, among other places, 
in the maritime zones off Lower California, should ensure that 
these resources are adequately protected, exploited, and de- 
veloped; and this urgency is even greater at present, when the 
world, impoverished and made needy by the war imposed on it 

855422—50 13 



186 

by totalitarianism, must develop its food production to the 
maximum. 

In the years before the war the Western Hemisphere was 
obliged to watch permanent fishing fleets of extracontinental 
countries engage in the immoderate and exhaustive exploitation 
of this immense wealth, which, although certainly it must con- 
tribute to the welfare of the world, must obviously belong in the 
first instance to the country which possesses it and to the conti- 
nent of which that country forms a part. By reason of the very 
nature of this wealth, it is indeispensable that this protection 
should be exercised by extending the control and supervision 
of the State to the places or zones indicated by science for the 
development of breeding-grounds of the high seas, irrespective 
of the distance separating them from the coast. 

For these reasons, the Government of the Republic claims the 
whole continental shelf adjacent to its coasts and all and every 
one of the natural riches, known or still to be discovered, which 
are found in it, and will proceed to supervise, utilize and control 
the zones of fishing protection which are necessary for the con- 
servation of this source of well-being. 

The foregoing declaration does not mean that the Mexican 
Government is attempting to disregard legitimate rights of third 
parties, or that the right of free navigation on the high seas is 
affected, inasmuch as the sole end sought is to conserve these 
resources for the welfare of the nation, of the continent, and of 
the world. 

My Government has already given orders to the competent 
authorities to proceed to draft the appropriate bills and to con- 
clude the treaties which may be necessary. 

Mexico, D. F., 29 October 1945. 

The President of the Republic, 

Manuel Avila Camacho. 

d. Panama: Constitution, 1 March 1946 (excerpt) 

(Constitucion de la Republica de Panama, Edicion Oficial.) 
[Translation] 

Article 209. The following belong to the State and are for 
public use, and consequently cannot be the object of private 
appropriation: . . . 

4th. The air space and continental shelf corresponding to 
the national territory. 



187 



e. Argentine Republic: Presidental Decree, 
11 October 1946 

[Decree 14,708/46, Boletin Oficial, 5 Dcember 1846; translation from 41 
American Journal of International Law, Supplement (1947), pp. 11-12.] 

[Translation] 

Whereas: 

The submarine platform, known also as the submarine plateau 
or continental shelf, is closely united to the mainland both in a 
morphological and in a geological sense; 

The waters covering the submarine platform constitute the 
epicontinental seas, characterized by extraordinary biological 
activity, owing to the influence of the sunlight, which stimulates 
plant life (as exemplified in algae, mosses, etc.) and the life of 
innumerable species of animals, both susceptible of industrial 
utilization; 

The Executive Power, in Article 2 of Decree No. 1, 386, dated 
January 24, 1944, issued a categorical proclamation of sov- 
ereignty over the "Argentine Continental Shelf" and the "Ar- 
gentine Epicontinental Sea," declaring them to be "transitory 
zones of mineral reserves"; 

The State, through the medium of the Yacimientos Betroliferos 
Fiscales [Public Petroleum Deposits Administration], is ex- 
ploiting the petroleum deposits discovered along the "Argentine 
Continental Shelf," thereby confirming the Argentine nation's 
right of ownership over all deposits situated in the aforesaid 
continental shelf; 

It is the purpose of the Executive Power to continue, more and 
more intensively, its scientific and technical investigations rela- 
tive to all phases of the exploration and exploitation of the 
animal, vegetable and mineral wealth, which offer such vast 
potentialities, contained in the Argentine continental shelf and 
in the corresponding epicontinental sea. 

In the international sphere conditional recognition is accorded 
to the right of every nation to consider as national territory the 
entire extent of its epicontinental sea and of the adjacent con- 
tinental shelf; 

Relying upon this principle, the Governments of the United 
States of America and of Mexico have issued declarations as- 
serting the sovereignty of each of the two countries over the 
respective peripheral epicontinental seas and continental shelves 
(Proclamation of President Truman, dated September 28, 1945, 
and Declaration of President Avila Camacho, dated October 
29, 1945); 



188 

The doctrine in question, aside from the fact that it is im- 
plicitly accepted in modern international law, is now deriving 
support from the realm of science in the form of serious and 
valuable contributions, according to the testimony offered by 
numerous national and foreign publications and even by official 
educational programs; and 

The manifest validity of the thesis invoked above, as well as 
the determination of the Argentine Government to perfect and 
preserve all the attributes inherently bound up with the exercise 
of national sovereignty, make it advisable to formulate the 
declaration pertinent to this matter, thereby amplifying the 
effects of the aforesaid Decree No. 1,386. 

The President of the Argentine Nation, supported by a 
General Accord of the Ministers. 

decrees: 

Article 1. It is hereby declared that the Argentine Epiconti- 
nental Sea and Continental Shelf are subject to the sovereign 
power of the Nation: 

Article 2. For purposes of free navigation, the character of 
the waters situated in the Argentine Epicontinental Sea and 
above the Argentine Continental Shelf, remains unaffected by 
the present Declaration; 

Article 3. The said Declaration shall be brought to the atten- 
tion of the Honorable Congress, published, transmitted to the 
National Registry and filed. 

Peron — J. Atilio Bramuglia. — Ramon Cereijo. — B. Gache 
Piran. — Humberto Sosa Molina. — F. L. Anadon. — A. G. 
Borlenghi. — J. Carlos Picazo Elordy. — Juan Pistarini. 

f. Chile: Presidential Declaration 25 June 1947 

(El Mercurio, Santiago de Chile, 29 June 1947, p. 27.) 
[Translation] 

Considering: 

1. That the Governments of the United States of America, 
of Mexico, and of the Argentine Republic, by presidential 
declarations made on 28 September 1945, 29 October 1945, and 
11 October 1946 respectively, have proclaimed in a categorical 
manner the sovereignty of those States over the continental shelf 
adjacent to their coasts, and over the adjacent sea to the full 
extent necessary to conserve for those States the ownership of 
the natural riches known or to be discovered in the future. 

2. That they have expressly proclaimed the rights of those 



189 



States to protect, conserve, regulate, and supervise fishing, in 
order to prevent illicit activities from threatening to diminish or 
wipe out the considerable riches of that type which are contained 
in the continental seas and which are indispensable for the wel- 
fare and progress of their respective peoples, measures whose 
justice is indisputable. 

3. That particularly in the case of the Republic of Chile there 
is a manifest advantage in issuing an analogous proclamation of 
sovereignity, not only because of the fact that the exploitation 
of resources contained in the continental shelf which are essen- 
tial to the national life is already under way, as is the case with 
the coal mines, which are being worked and will continue to 
expand into the territory which is covered by water, but also, 
even more important, because owing to its topography and lack 
of mediterranean extension, the country's life is bound up with 
the sea and with all the present and future riches contained in 
the sea, to a greater degree than in the case of any other nation. 

4. That an international consensus recognizes that each coun- 
try has the right to consider as national territory the whole 
extent of the adjacent epicontinental sea and continental shelf. 

5. That the State has the obligation to protect and supervise 
the exploitation of the resources contained in its maritime, ter- 
restrial, and aerial territory. 

The President of the Republic declares: 

1. The Government of Chile confirms and proclaims the na- 
tional sovereignity over the whole continental shelf adjacent to 
the continental and insular coasts of the national territory what- 
ever its depth may be, claiming, consequently, all the natural 
riches which exist on, in, or under said shelf, known or to be 
discovered. 

2. The Government of Chile confirms and proclaims the na- 
tional sovereignity over the seas adjacent to its coasts, whatever 
their depth may be, to the full extent necessary to reserve, 
protect, conserve, and utilise the natural resources and wealth 
of whatever nature, found on, in, or under said seas, placing 
under Government supervision the fishing and marine hunting 
industries in order to prevent this type of resources from being 
exploited to the prejudice of the inhabitants of Chile and dimin- 
ished or destroyed to the detriment of the country and of the 
American Continent. 

3. Demarcation of the zones of protection of maritime hunt- 
ing and fishing in the continental and island seas which are 



190 

under the control of the Government of Chile will be made in 
virtue of this declaration of sovereignity, whenever the Govern- 
ment considers it suitable, by ratifying, amplifying, or in any 
manner modifying the said demarcations in conformity with 
the knowledge, discoveries, studies, and interests of Chile which 
may be made known in the future; at present said protection 
and control are declared over all the sea included between the 
perimeter formed by the coast and a mathematical parallel 
projected out to sea at a distance of two hundred marine miles 
from the continental coasts of Chile. With respect to the 
Chilean islands, this demarcation will be made by marking out 
a sea zone contiguous to the coasts of these islands, projected 
parallel to these coasts for two hundred marine miles from the 
whole circumference. 

4. The present declaration of sovereignity does not disregard 
similar legitimate rights of other States, on the basis of reci- 
procity, and does not affect rights of free navigation on the 
high seas. 
Santiago, 25 June 1947. 

Gabriel Gonzalez Videla, 

President of the Republic. 

g. Peru: Presidential Decree, 1 August 1947 

(El Peruano, Diario Oficial, 11 August 1947, p. 1.) 
[Translation] 

The President of the Republic considering: 

That the submarine platform or continental shelf forms a 
single morphological and geological unity with the continent; 

That natural wealth exists in said platform, and it is indis- 
pensable to proclaim that this wealth forms part of the national 
patrimony; 

That it is equally necessary that the State protect, conserve, 
and regulate the use of fishing resources and other natural 
wealth which is found in the epicontinental waters which cover 
the submarine platform and in the continental seas adjacent to 
it, in order that this wealth, essential to the national life, shall 
be exploited now and in the future in such a way that no detri- 
ment is caused to the economy of the country or to its food 
production; 

That the fertilising wealth deposited by guano birds on the 
islands of the Peruvian coast also requires for its safeguard the 



191 

protection, conservation, and regulation of the use of the fish- 
ing resources which serve to nourish the said birds; 

That the right to proclaim State sovereignity and national 
jurisdiction over the whole extent of the platform or submarine 
shelf, as well as over the epicontinental waters which cover it 
and over the sea waters adjacent to them, to the full extent 
necessary for the conservation and supervision of the riches 
contained therein, has been declared by other States and has 
been incorporated in practice into the international order 
(Declaration of the President of the United States of America 
of 28 September 1945; Declaration of the President of Mexico 
of 29 October 1945; Declaration of the President of the Argen- 
tine Nation of 11 October 1946; Declaration of the President of 
Chile of 23 June 1947); 

That Article 37 of the Constitution of the State lays down 
that the mines, lands, forests, and in general all natural sources 
of wealth pertain to the State, except where others have legiti- 
mately acquired rights; 

That in the exercise of sovereignity and in regard to national 
economic interests, it is the duty of the state to specify in an 
unequivocal manner the maritime domain of the Nation, within 
which the protection, conservation, and supervision of the afore- 
mentioned natural wealth will be exercised; 

With the consultative vote of the Council of Ministers; 

decrees: 

1. It is hereby declared that national sovereignity and juris- 
diction extend to the submarine platform or continental and 
insular shelf adjacent to the continental and island coasts of 
the national territory, whatever may be the depth and the ex- 
tent of said shelf. 

2. The national sovereignity and jurisdiction are exercised as 
well over the sea adjacent to the coasts of the national territory, 
whatever its depth, to the extent necessary to reserve, protect, 
conserve, and utilise the natural resources and wealth of all 
types which are found in or under the said sea. 

3. As a consequence of these declarations, the State reserves 
the right to establish the demarcation of zones of control and 
protection of the national wealth in the continental and island 
seas which are under the control of the Government of Peru, 
and to modify the said demarcation in accord with supervening 
circumstances, by reason of new discoveries or studies, or na- 
tional interests which may become apparent in the future; and 



192 

declares at present that it will exercise the said control and pro- 
tection over the sea adjacent to the coasts of Peruvian territory 
in a zone lying between those coasts and an imaginary line paral- 
lel to them, drawn on the sea at a distance of two hundred 
(200) marine miles, measured by following the line of the 
geographical parallels. With respect to the national islands, 
this demarcation will be drawn by marking out a zone of the 
sea contiguous to the coasts of the said islands, up to a distance 
of two hundred (200) marine miles measured from every point 
on the circumference of the islands. 

4. The present declaration does not affect the right of free 
navigation of ships of all nations, in conformity with inter- 
national law. 

Given at Government House in Lima, the first day of August, 
one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven. 

J. L. BUSTAMENTE R. 

E. Garcia Sayan 

h. Nicaragua: 1 Political Constitution, 
22 January 1948 

(La Gaceta, Diario Oficial, 22 January 1948.) 
[Translation] 

Article 2. The basis of the national territory is the uti 
possidetis juris of 1821 . The territory between the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans and the Republics of Honduras and Costa Rica 
is included, and this territory embraces also the adjacent islands, 
the territorial sea, the continental shelves, and the air space 
and stratospheric space. Boundaries which are not yet de- 
termined shall be fixed by treaties and the law. 



1 During April 1947, the Minister of the Interior presented to the Nicaraguan 
Chamber of Deputies a bill regarding the continental shelf, providing that 
Nicaraguan sovereignty should extend to all land under the oceans bordering 
on the national territory which was less than two hundred meters below the 
surface of the sea at mean low tide; and that if this claim should conflict with 
that of another nation, the boundary would be established by treaty. As 
passed by the Chamber of Deputies early in May 1947, the bill proclaimed 
sovereignty over the continental shelf, the limit of which was not defined. As 
the Nicaraguan Senate did not act on the bill approved by the Chamber of 
Deputies, it did not become law. In the Constitution adopted on 22 January 
1948, the national territory is defined as including the continental shelves. 



193 

i. Costa Rica: Decree Law of 29 July 1948. 

{La Gaceta, Diario Oficial, 29 July 1948.) 
[Translation] 

The Founding Junta of the Second Republic Considering: 

1. That there is a pressing need of making arrangements for 
the protection and conservation of the natural wealth, known 
at present or which may be discovered in the future, which 
exists on, in, or under the continental or insular shelf or plat- 
form of the national territory and on, in, or under the seas 
adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the Nation, in 
view of the fact that their conservation and adequate exploita- 
tion are of vital national interest and as such merit the extreme 
attention of the State and consequently make necessary the 
establishment of systems of supervision which the situation 
most urgently requires. 

2. That in order to bring about a methodical techinical regu- 
lation of this national wealth, it is indispensable that the State 
should proclaim national sovereignity and jurisdiction over the 
submarine platform or continental shelf adjacent to the conti- 
nental and insular coasts of the territory of the Nation, to the 
same extent that other States have done (declaration of the 
President of the United States of America of 28 September 1946; 
declaration of the President of the United Mexican States of 
29 October 1945; declaration of the President of the Argentine 
Republic of 11 October 1946; declaration of the President of 
the Republic of Chile 23 June 1947; and decree of the President 
of the Republic of Peru of 1 August 1947) . 

3. That an international consensus proclaims and recognizes 
that each country has an inalienable right to consider as part 
of the national territory the whole extent of the adjacent epi- 
continental sea and the continental shelf. 

4. That with reference to the exploitation and supervision of 
the, resources contained in its maritime, terrestrial and aerial 
territory, it is the inescapable obligation of the States to give 
them its protection. 

For the foregoing reasons, 

decrees: 

Article 1. National sovereignity is confirmed and proclaimed 
over all the submarine platform or continental shelf adjacent to 
the continental and insular coasts of the national territory, at 
whatever depth said shelf lies, and the inalienable right of the 



194 



Nation to all the natural resources which exist on, in, or under 
said shelf or platform, known or to be discovered, is reaffirmed. 

Article 2. National sovereignty is confirmed and proclaimed 
over the seas adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of 
the national territory, whatever their depth, to the extent neces- 
sary to protect, conserve, and utilize the natural resources and 
wealth which exist or may come into existence on, in, or beneath 
those seas, and from the present onward fishing and maritime 
hunting in said seas shall be under the supervision of the Gov- 
ernment of Costa Rica with the object of preventing an unsuit- 
able exploitation of natural resources from prejudicing the 
nationals and the economy of the Nation and from prejudicing 
the American Continent. 

Article 3 . Demarcation of the zones of protection of fishing 
and maritime hunting in the continental and island seas which 
in virtue of the present Decree Law are under the control of 
the Government of Costa Rica shall be made, in accordance 
with this declaration of sovereignty, whenever the Govermnent 
thinks it suitable, by ratifying, amplifying, or modifying said 
demarcations, as the national interest shall demand. 

Article 4. The protection and control of the State are de- 
clared over all the sea included between the perimeter formed 
by the coast line and a mathematical parallel projected out to 
sea at a distance of two hundred marine miles from the conti- 
nental Costa Rican coasts. With respect to the Costa Rican 
islands, the demarcation will be made by marking out a sea 
zone contiguous to the coasts of these islands, projected parallel 
to these coasts at a distance of two hundred miles from the 
whole circumference. 

Article 5. The present declaration of sovereignty does not 
disregard similar legitimate rights of other States, on the basis 
of reciprocity, and does not affect rights of free navigation on 
the high seas. 

Given in the Hall of Sessions of the Founding Junta of the 
Second Republic, San Jose, on the twenty-seventh day of July, 
one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight. 

Jose Figueres. — Fernando Valverde Vega. — Uladislao Gamez 
Solano. — Bruce Masis Diviasi. — Benjamin Nunez Vargas. — 
Gonzalo Facio Segreda. — Alberto Marten Chavarria. — Fran- 
cisco Jose Orlich Bolmarcich. — Raul Blanco Cervantes. — Edgar 
Cardona Quiros. 



195 



j. Saudi Arabia: Royal Pronouncement, 28 May 1949 

(Published by the Saudi Arab Government, 1949.) 

[Translation] 

We, Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdul Rahman Al Faisal Al Sa'ud, King 
of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

After reliance on God Almighty, being aware of the need for 
the greater utilization of the world's natural resources which 
are the bounty of God, and of the desirability of giving en- 
couragement to efforts to discover and make available such 
resources, 

Recognizing that by God's Providence valuable resources 
may underlie parts of the Persian Gulf off the coasts of Saudi 
Arabia, and that modern technology by the grace of God makes 
it increasingly practicable to utilize these resources. 

Appreciating that recognized jurisdiction over such resources 
is required in the interest of their conservation and prudent 
utilization when and as development is undertaken, 

Deeming that the exercise of jurisdiction over such resources 
by the contiguous nation is reasonable and just, since the effec- 
tiveness of measures to utilize or conserve these resources would 
be contingent upon cooperation and protection from the shore 
and since self-protection compels the coastal nation to keep 
close watch over activities off its shores which are of a nature 
necessary for the utilization of these resources, and 

Considering that various other nations now exercise uris- 
diction over the subsoil and sea bed of areas contiguous to their 
coasts, 

Declare the following policy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
with respect to the subsoil and sea bed of areas of the Persian 
Gulf contiguous to the coasts of Our Kingdom: 

The subsoil and sea bed of those areas of the Persian Gulf sea- 
ward from the coastal sea of Saudi Arabia but contiguous to its 
coasts are declared to appertain to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
and to be subject to its jurisdiction and control. The boundaries 
of such areas will be determined in accordance with equitable 
principles by Our Government in agreement with other states 
having jurisdiction and control over the subsoil and seabed of 
adjoining areas. The character as high seas of the waters of such 
areas, the right to the free and unimpeded navigation of such 
waters and the air space above those waters, fishing rights in such 
waters, and the traditional freedom of pearling by the peoples of 
the Gulf are in no way affected. 



196 

This Pronouncement is made for the information and guidance 
of all whom it may concern. 

May the Faithful always put their trust in God. 

Promulgated in our Palace at Riyadh on the 1st day of the 
month of Shaaban of the year of the Hegira 1368, corresponding 
to 28th day of May 1949. 

(Signed) Abdul Aziz. 

4. Territorial Waters 
Saudi Arabia: Royal Decree, 28 May 1949 

(Translation published by the^Saudi Arab Government, 1949.) 

We, Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdul Rahman Al Faisal Sa'ud, King of 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 

After reliance on God Almighty and in view of our desire to 
define the territorial waters of the Kingdom, have Decreed as 
Follows: 

Article 1. For the purposes of this Decree, 

(a) The term "nautical mile" is the equivalent of 1852 meters; 

(b) The term "bay" includes any inlet, lagoon or other arm 
of the sea; 

(c) The term "island" includes any islet, reef, rock, bar or 
permanent artificial structure not submerged at lowest low 
tide; 

(d) The term "shoal" denotes an area covered by shallow 
water, a part of which is not submerged at lowest low tide; and 

(e) The term "coast" refers to the coasts of the Red Sea, the 
Gulf of Aqaba, and the Persian Gulf. 

Article 2. The territorial waters of the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia, as well as the air space above and the soil and subsoil 
beneath them, are under the sovereignty of the Kingdom, sub- 
ject to the provisions of international law as to the innocent 
passage of vessels of other nations through the coastal sea. 

Article 3. The territorial waters of the Kingdom of Saudi 
Arabia embrace both the inland waters and the coastal sea of 
the Kingdom. 

Article 4. The inland waters of the Kingdom include: 

(a) The waters of the bays along the coasts of the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia; 

(b) The waters above and landward from any shoal not more 
than twelve nautical miles from the mainland or from a Saudi 
Arabian island; 

(c) The waters between the mainland and a Saudi Arabian 



197 



island not more than twelve nautical miles from the mainland; 
and 

(d) The waters between Saudi Arabian islands not farther 
apart than twelve nautical miles. 

Article 5. The coastal sea of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
lies outside the inland waters of the kingdom and extends sea- 
ward for a distance of six nautical miles. 

Article 6. The following are established as the base-lines 
from which the coastal sea of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is 
measured: 

(a) Where the shore of the mainland or an island is fully 
exposed to the open sea, the lowest low-water mark on the 
shore; 

(b) Where a bay confronts the open sea, lines drawn from 
headland to headland across the mouth of the bay; 

(c) Where a shoal is situated not more than twelve nautical 
miles from the mainland or from a Saudi Arabian island, lines 
drawn from the mainland or the island and along the outer 
edge of the shoal: 

(d) Where a port or harbor confronts the open sea, lines 
drawn along the seaward side of the outermost works of the 
port or harbor and between such works; 

(e) Where an island is not more than twelve nautical miles 
from the mainland, lines drawn from the mainland and along 
the outer shores of the island; 

(/) Where there is an island group which may be connected 
by lines not more than twelve nautical miles long, of which 
the island nearest to the mainland is not more than twelve 
nautical miles from the mainland, lines drawn from the main- 
land and along the outer shores of all the islands of the group 
if the islands form a chain, or along the outer shores of the 
outermost islands of the group if the islands do not form a 
chain; and 

(g) Where there is an island group which may be connected 
by Lines not more than twelve nautical miles long, of which 
the island nearest to the mainland is more than twelve nautical 
miles from the mainland, lines drawn along the outer shores of 
all the islands of the group if the islands form a chain, or along 
the outer shores of the outermost islands of the group if the 
islands do not form a chain. 

Article 7. If the measurement of the territorial waters in 
accordance with the provisions of this Decree leaves an area 
of high sea wholly surrounded by territorial waters and ex- 



198 

tending not more than twelve nautical miles in any direction, 
such area shall form part of the territorial waters. The same 
rule shall apply to a pronounced pocket of high sea which may 
be wholly enclosed by drawing a single straight line not more 
than twelve nautical miles long. 

Article 8. If the inland waters described in Article 4, or if 
the coastal sea measured from the base-lines fixed by Article 6 
of this Decree be overlapped by the waters of another State, 
boundaries will be determined by Our Government in agree- 
ment with the State concerned in accordance with equitable 
principles. 

Article 9. With a view to assuring compliance with the laws 
of the Kingdom relating to security, navigation, and fiscal 
matters, maritime surveillance may be exercised in a contiguous 
zone outside the coastal sea, extending for a further distance 
of six nautical miles and measured from the base-lines of the 
coastal sea, provided however that nothing in this Article shall 
be deemed to apply to the rights of the Kingdom with respect 
to fishing. 

Article 10. Our Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Finance 
are charged with the execution of this Decree. 

Article 11. This Decree will come into effect as from the 
date of its publication in the official gazette. 

Promulgated in our Palace at Riyadh on the 1st day of the 
month of Shaaban of the year of the Hegira 1368, correspond- 
ing to the 28th day of May 1949. 

(Signed) Abdul Aziz 

IV. LAW OF THE AIR 

1. United States Airspace Reservations 

Note. The Air Commerce Act of 20 May 1926 (44 Stat. 570) provides in 
section 4: 

"The President is authorized to provide by Executive order for the setting 
apart and the protection of airspace reservations in the United States for 
national defense or other governmental purposes and, in addition, in the District 
of Columbia for public safety purposes." 

The Canal Zone Code, as amended by the Act of 9 July 1937 
(50 Stat. 486) empowers the President to make rules and regu- 
lations, until Congress provides otherwise, governing aircraft 
and air navigation within the airspace above the lands and 
waters of the Canal Zone. 



199 



(1) Canal Zone Military Airspace Reservation 



(Executive Order No. 5047, 18 February 1929; superseded by No. 8125, 12 
September 1939 4 F. R. 3899, ammended by No. 8271, 16 October 1939, 
4 F. R. 4277; still in force.) 

[Area:] The airspace above the Canal Zone, including the 
territorial waters within the three-mile marine boundary at 
each end of the Canal." 

[Regulations:] Sec. 2. Unlawful navigation of aircraft in mili- 
tary airspace reservation. It shall be unlawful to navigate any 
foreign or domestic aircraft into, within, or through the Canal 
Zone Military Airspace Reservation otherwise than in con- 
formity with this Executive Order: Provided , however, that 
none of the provisions of this order shall apply to military, 
naval, or other public aircraft of the United States. 

Sec. 3. Authorization for entrance of aircraft into the Canal 
Zone Military Airspace Reservation, and navigation therein. 
Aircraft, foreign or domestic, shall be navigated into, within, 
or through the Canal Zone Military Airspace Reservation only 
under and in compliance with an authorization granted after 
the effective date of this order (a) by the Civil Aeronautics 
Authority in the case of civil aircraft, and (b) by the Secretary 
of State in the case of all other aircraft. Such authorization 
shall be granted only after consultation with the Secretary of 
War, and shall be subject to the further rules and regulations 
contained in or issued under this order, as well as those appli- 
cable generally to the entrance of aircraft into, and their navi- 
gation within or through, the Canal Zone Military Airspace 
Reservation. . . . " 

(2) Airspace Reservations over Harbors Closed 
to Foreign Vessels 

(Executive Order No. 5281, 17 February 1930; discontinued as to places within 
the continental limits of the United States (i.e. Tortugas, Florida) by No. 
8961, 6 December 1941, 6 F. R. 6325; superseded as to Subic Bay by No. 
8718, 22 March 1941, 6 F. R. 1621, discontinued by No. 9720, 8 May 1946; 
superseded as to Kiska by No. 8680, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1014; other- 
wise still in force.) 

[Areas:] The airspace over each of the hereinafter named 
harbors that are declared closed ports by Executive Order No. 
1613, dated September 23, 1912. . . . l ' 

Tortugas, Florida; 

Great Harbor, Culebra; 

1 Ante, p. 157. 



200 

Guantanamo Naval Station, Cuba; 

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; 

Guam; 

Subic Bay, Philippine Islands; 

Kiska, Aleutian Islands. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall civil aircraft of any kind be 
navigated within the airspace reservations above defined ex- 
cept by special authority of the United States Navy Depart- 
ment in each case. 

(3) Airspace Reservation in Chesapeake Bay 2 

(Executive Order No. 5710, 14 September 1931; in force 
from 5 to 20 October 1931.) 

[Area:] The airspace over . . . waters within a radius of 5 
miles of latitude 37°43'12", longitude 76°04 / , in Chesapeake 
Bay near the southern end of Tangier Sound. 

[Regulations:] No aircraft . . . shall navigate within the areas 
herein created except such as are authorized by the Secretary 
of the Navy in connection with national defense operations or 
for other governmental purposes." 

(4) Airspace Reservation over the District of Columbia 

(Executive Order No. 6023, 11 February 1933; in force from 
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., 4 March 1933.) 

[Area:] The airspace over the District of Columbia. 

[Regulations:] Between the time above specified [9 a.m. to 
5 p.m., 4 March 1933], no aircraft shall be navigated through 
the airspace over the District of Columbia except such aircraft 
as may be specifically permitted by the Secretary of Commerce, 
between such time and over such places as the Secretary of 
Commerce in his discretion may determine. 

(5) Airspace Reservations over Certain Military and Naval 
Reservations and Other Areas 

(Executive Order No. 7138, 12 August 1935; discontinued as to places within 
the continental limits of the United States by No. 8961, 6 December 1941, 
6F. R. 6325.) 

[Areas:] The airspace over the military and naval reserva- 
tions and other areas hereinafter designated . . . 



2 A defensive sea area was established at the same time in the waters in the 
same area. 



201 



Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey. 
Savanna Ordnance Depot, Savanna, Illinois. 
Nansemond Ordnance Depot, Portsmouth, Virginia. 
Wingate Ordnance Depot, Gallup, New Mexico. 
Camp Stanley Ordnance Reservations, Leon Springs, 

Texas. 
Fort Hancock, Sandy Hook, New Jersey. 
Fort Saulsbury, about 4 miles east of Milford, Delaware. 
Fort Pickens, western portion of Santa Rosa Island, 
Pensacola Bay, Florida. 

Fort Barry, near Point Bonita Lighthouse, San Francisco 
Bay, Claifornia. 

Fort Canby, near Cape Disappointment Lighthouse, 
Washington. 

Fort Casey, near Admiralty Head Lighthouse, Wash- 
ington. 

Naval Ammunition Depot, Hingham, Massachusetts. 
Naval Ammunition Depot, Fort Lafayette, New York. 
Naval Ammunition Depot, Lake Denmark, New Jersey. 
Naval Ammunition Depot, St. Juliens Creek, Virginia. 
Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada. 
Naval Ammunition Depot, Mare Island, California. 
Naval Ammunition Depot, Puget Sound, Washington. 
Naval Mine Depot, Yorktown, Virginia. 
Naval Torpedo Station, Newport, Rhode Island. 
Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, Washington. 
Naval Ordnance Plant, Baldwin, Long Island, New York. 
Naval Fuel Depot, San Diego, California. 
That part of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, with their 
territorial waters, lying west of the 167th meridan, west 
longititude. 
[Regulations:] Civil aircraft, for reasons of public safety, are 
forbidden to be operated except by special permission in each 
case of that department of the Government of the United States 
having jurisdiction over the reservations or areas concerned. 

(6) Airspace Reservation over a Portion of the 
District of Columbia 

(Executive Order No. 7910, 16 June 1938, 3 F. R. 1437; superseded by No. 
8378,18 March 1940, 5 F. R. 1114; spuerseded by No. 8950, 26 November 
1941, 6 F. R. 6101, amended by No. 9153, 30 April 1942, 7 F. R. 3275; still 
in force.) 

855422—50 14 



202 

[Area:] All that area within the City of Washington, D. C, 
lying within the following-described boundary: 

"Beginning at the eastern end of the Arlington Memorial 
Bridge (Lat. 38°53'19" N.; Long. 77°3'9" W.)(also identifiable 
as a point adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial Monument); thence 
north along the eastern bank of the Georgetown Channel of the 
Potomac River to the eastern end of the Key Bridge (Lat. 
38°54'14" N.; Long. 77°04 , 15 ,/ W.); 

"thence a distance of approximately 0.3 miles on a true bear- 
ing of 307° to Georgetown University (Lat. 38°54'25" N.; Long. 
77°04 / 28' / W.) (identifiable by the Astronomical Observatory 
situated within the University Grounds); 

"thence a distance of approximately 1.7 miles on a true bear- 
ing of 6° to the National Cathedral (Lat. 38°55'52" N.; Long. 
77°04'17 // W> ) (identifiable by the spires); 

"thence a distance of approximately 3.4 miles on a true bear- 
ing of 78° to the Scott Building of the Soldiers' Home (Lat. 
38°56'31" N.; Long. 77°00'41" W.) (identifiable by the clock 
cupola above the roof of such building); 

"thence a distance of approximately 3.1 miles on a bearing of 
175° true to the center of the Union Station (Lat. 38°53 / 49 // N.; 
Long. 77°00 / 23 // W.) (identifiable by the south southwest termi- 
nal of the railroad tracks); 

"thence a distance of 0.4 miles on a true bearing of 120° to the 
center of Stanton Square (Lat. 38°53'36" N.; Long.77°OOW / 
W.) (identifiable as the conjunction of Massachusetts Avenue, 
Maryland Avenue, and 4th, 5th, and 6th Streets, Northeast, 
with such Square); 

"thence a distance of approximately 0.8 of a mile on a true 
bearing of approximately 208° to the intersection of the center- 
lines of New Jersey Avenue, North Carolina Avenue, and E 
Street Southeast (Lat. 38°53'00" N.; Long. 77°00'24" W.) 
(identifiable as a point adjacent to the smokestack of the Capitol 
power house); 

"thence a distance of approximately 1.4 miles on a true bear- 
ing of approximately 268° to the center of the railroad bridge 
over the channel of water connecting the Tidal Basin and the 
Washington Channel (Lat. 38°52'58" N.; Long. 77 o 01 , 57 ,, W.); 
and 

"thence a distance of approximately 1.1 miles on a true bear- 
ing of approximately 291° to the point of beginning." 

[Regulations:] Within [this area] no person shall navigate a 



203 



civil aircraft except by special permission of the Administrator 
of Civil Aeronautics. 

(7) Sitka Naval Airspace Reservation 

(Executive Order No. 8597, 18 November 1940, 5 F. R. 4559; 
discontinued by No. 9720, 8 May 1946, 11 F. R. 5105.) 

[Area:] The airspaces over the hereinafter described areas in 
the Territory of Alaska and over the territorial waters within 
the three-mile limits adjacent thereto . . . 

All of Japonski Island situated immediately west of the City 
of Sitka, Alaska, and that part of Sitka Bay lying south of 
Japonski Island and west of the main channel described by 
metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the southeast point 
of Japonski Island at angle point No. 7 of the meanders of the 
U. S. Survey No. 1496; thence east approximately 1200 chains 
to the center of the main channel; thence south 45° east along 
the main channel approximately 20.00 chains; thence south 45° 
west approximately 9.00 chains to the southwestern point of 
Aleutski Island; thence south 79° west approximately 40.00 
chains to the southern point of Fruit Island; thence north 60° 
west approximately 50.00 chains to the southwestern point of 
Japonski Island at angle point No. 35 of the U. S. Survey No. 
1496; thence easterly with the meanders of Japonski Island to 
the point of beginning including Charcoal, Aleutski, Harbor, 
Alice, Love, Fruit Islands, and a number of smaller unnamed 
islands, and containing a total land and water area of approxi- 
mately 195 acres, being the same area described in Executive 
Order No. 8216, dated July 25, 1939. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall any aircraft, other than public 
aircraft of the United States, be navigated into, within, or 
through Sitka Naval Airspace Reservation or Kodiak Naval 
Airspace Reservation, unless authorized by the Secretary of the 
Navy. 

(8) Kodiak Naval Airspace Reservation 

(Executive Order No. 8597, 18 November 1940, 5 F. R. 4559 
still in force.) 

[Area:] The airspaces over the hereinafter described areas in 
the Territory of Alaska and over the territorial waters within the 
three-mile limits adjacent thereto . . . 

The eastern portion of Kodiak Island described by metes and 
bounds as follows: Beginning at a point at Latitude 57°47 / // 
north, Longitude 152°26 / 30 // west, thence, 

W.to Lat. 57°47'0" N., Long. 152°36'0" W. 



204 

S. to Lat. 57°44 , 30 ,/ N., Long. 152°36'0" W. 

SW. to Lat. 57°42'0" N., Long. 152°38 , // W. 

S. to Lat. 57°39'30" N., Long. 152°38'0" W. 

E. to Lat. 57°39'30" N., Long. 152°30'0" W. 

NE. to Lat. 57°42'0" N., Long. 152°26'0" W. 

N. to Lat. 57°44 , ,/ N., Long. 152°26'0" W. 

NW. to Lat. 57°47 , ,/ N., Long. 152°26'30" W. 
to the point of beginning being the same area described in Execu- 
tive Order No. 8278, dated October 28, 1939. 
[Regulations identical with No. 7 above.] 

(9) Kiska Island Naval Airspace Reservation; Unalaska 

Island Naval Airspace Reservation 3 

(Executive Order No. 8680, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1014, 
corrected by No. 8729, 2 April 1941, 6 F. R. 1791; still in force.) 

[Areas:] The airspaces over the islands of Kiska and Un- 
alaska and over the territorial waters between the high-water 
marks and the three-mile marine boundaries surrounding them. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall any aircraft, other than public 
aircraft of the United States, be navigated into either of the 
naval airspace reservations herein set apart and reserved, unless 
authorized by the Secretary of the Navy. 

3 A defensive sea area was established at the same time in the waters in the 
same area. 

(10) Kaneohe Bay Naval Airspace Reservation 4 
(Executive Order No. 8681, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1014; still in force.) 

[Area:] The airspace over the territorial waters within Kane- 
ohe Bay between extreme high-water mark and the sea and in 
and about the entrance channel within a line bearing northeast 
true extending three nautical miles from Kaoio Point, a line 
bearing northeast true extending four nautical miles from 
Kapoho Point, and a line joining the seaward extremities of the 
two above-described bearing lines. 

[Regulations:] At no time shall any aircraft, other than public 
aircraft of the United States, be navigated into Kaneohe Bay 
Naval Airspace Reservation, unless authorized by the Secretary 
of the Navy. 

(11) Palmyra Island Naval Airspace Reservation; Johnston Island 
Naval Airspace Reservation; Midway Island Naval Airspace 
Reservation; Wake Island Naval Airspace Reservation; King- 
man Reef Naval Airspace Reservation 4 

4 A defensive sea area was established at the same time in the waters in the 
same area. 



205 



(Executive Order No. 8682, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1015, corrected by 
No. 8729, 2 April 1941, 6 F. R. 1791; discontinued as to Palmyra Island by 
No. 9881, 4 August 1947, 12 F. R. 5325; otherwise still in force.) 

[Areas:] The airspaces over the islands of Palmyra, Johnston, 
Midway, Wake, and Kingman Reef and over the territorial 
waters between the extreme high-water marks and the three- 
mile marine boundaries surrounding them. 

[Regulations similar to No. 10 above.] 

(12) Rose Island Naval Airspace Reservation; Tutuila Island 

Naval Airspace Reservation; Guam Island Naval Airspace 

Reservation 5 

(Executive Order No. 8683, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1015, corrected by 
No. 8729, 2 April 1941, 6 F. R. 1791; still in force.) 

[Area:] The airspaces over the islands of Rose, Tutuila, and 
Guam and over the territorial waters between the extreme high- 
water marks and the three-mile marine boundaries surrounding 
them. 

[Regulations similar to No. 10 above.] 

(13) Culebra Island Naval Airspace Reservation 5 
(Executive Order No. 8684, 14 February 1941, 6 F. R. 1016; still in force.) 

[Area:] The airspace over the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico 
and over the territorial waters between the extreme high-water 
mark and the three-mile marine boundary surrounding it. 

[Regulations similar to No. 10 above.] 

(14) Subic Bay Naval Airspace Reservation 5 

(Executive Order No. 8718, 22 March 1941, 6 F. R. 1621; discontinued by 
No. 9720, 8 May 1946, 11 F. R. 5105.) 

[Area:] The airspace over the Subic Bay Naval Reservation, 
Olongapo, Philippine Islands, and over the territorial waters 
within Subic Bay between extreme high water mark and the 
sea and in and about the entrance channel within a line bearing 
true southwest extending three nautical miles from Sanpaloc 
Point, and a line joining the seaward extremities of the above 
two bearing lines. 

[Regulations similar to No. 10 above.] 

(15) Guantanamo Bay Naval Airspace Reservation 6 
(Executive Order No. 8749, 1 May 1941, 6 F. R. 2252; still in force.) 
[Area:] The airspace over the Guantanamo Naval Reservation 

5 A defensive sea area was established at the same time in the waters in the 
same area. 

6 A defensive sea area was established at the same time in the waters in the 
same area. 



206 

and over the territorial waters within Guantanamo Bay between 
high-water mark and the sea and in and about the entrance 
channel within a line bearing true south extending three nautical 
miles from the shore line of the eastern boundary of Guantanamo 
Naval Reservation, as laid down in the Agreement between the 
United States of America and the Republic of Cuba signed by 
the President of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the Presi- 
dent of the United States on February 23, 1903, a line bearing 
true south extending three nautical miles from the shore line 
of the western boundary of said Naval Reservation, and a line 
joining the seaward extremities of the above two bearing lines. 
[Regulations similar to No. 10 above.] 

(16) Airspace Reservation over Portions of Ulster and Duchess 

Counties, New York 

(Executive Order No. 9090, 6 March 1942; discontinued by 
No. 9566, 5 June 1945, 10 F. R. 6793.) 

[Area:] The airspace above the following described portions of 
Lister and Duchess Counties, New York . . . 

All that area within Ulster and Duchess Counties, New York, 
lying within the following-described boundary: 

Beginning at the River Landing on the West Bank of Hudson 
River at East Kingston, Ulster County; thence in an East- 
Northeasterly direction of the center line of the Central New 
England Railroad Bridge over Shehomeko Creek at Pine Plains, 
Duchess County; thence South-Southesat to the center line of 
the New York Central P.ailroad Bridge over Ten-Mile River at 
Dover Plains, Duchess County; thence West-Southwest to the 
Southwest corner of the Mid-Hudson Bridge at Poughkeepsie, 
New York, and continuing on this line to the West Bank of the 
Hudson River, Ulster County; thence along the West Bank of 
the Hudson River to the point of origin. 

[Regulations:] Within [this airspace reservation] no person 
shall navigate a civil aircraft except by special permission of 
the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics. 

2. Foreign State Aircraft Over National Territory 

Note. The principle that a State has complete and exclusive sovereignty 
over the air-space above its territory has been repeatedly enunciated during 
the past thirty years. It was embodied in the Convention for the Regulation 
of Aerial Navigation signed at Paris on 13 October 1919 (11 League of Nations 
Treaty Series, p. 173); in the Convention on Commercial Aviation signed at 
Habana on 20 February 1928 (U. S. Treaty Series, No. 840); and in the Con- 
vention on International Civil Aviation signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944 
(U. S. Treaties and Other International Acts Series, No. 1591). 



207 



In line with this principle, the Paris Convention provided (Article 32) that 
"no military aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another 
contracting State nor land thereon without special authorization." The 
Chicago Convention contains a similar provision (Article 3c) as to state air- 
craft, i. e., aircraft used in military, customs and police services. Both Con- 
ventions leave in doubt the treatment to be accorded to foreign State aircraft 
forced by weather conditions or distress to fly over a State's territory. Hence, 
the question arises as to the extent to which an analogy to foreign surface 
ships forced into a State's territorial waters is to be applied. 

This question became acute in incidents which occurred in 1946, when mili- 
tary transport planes of the United States, en route from Vienna in Austria to 
Udine in Italy, flew over the territory of Yugoslavia. On 19 August 1946, 
another such plane was shot down by Yugoslav fighters and all of its crew 
perished. The Yugoslav Government later paid to the United States an in- 
demnity of $150,000 for the lives of the five members of the crew who perished 
on the latter occasion; no indemnity was paid for either of the aircraft which 
were lost. The published diplomatic correspondence between the two Govern- 
ments is reproduced here, in part. 

a. The American Ambassador in Belgrade to the 

Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published 

20 August 1946 

(15 Department of State Bulletin, p. 415.) 

Reference is made to previous representations with regard to 
alleged violations of Yugoslav territory by United States air- 
craft and the forcing to the ground by Yugoslav aircraft of an 
American C-47 air transport on August 9. United States au- 
thorities in Austria and Italy have now reported the results of 
their investigation in this connection, from which it appears 
that on August 9 airplane no. 43-15376 of the C-47 type, while 
on a regular flight from Vienna to Udine encountered bad 
weather over Klagenfurt and was engaged in an effort to find 
its bearings when at approximately 1300 it was attacked by 
Yugoslav fighters. The attackers fired repeated bursts at the 
aircraft as a result of which one passenger was seriously wounded 
and the plane forced to crash land, wheels retracted, in a field 
neat Kranj twelve kilometers from Ljubljana. As for other 
"violations" of Yugoslav territory referred to in the Foreign 
Office's note of August 10, alleged to total 172 between July 16 
and August 8, United States authorities in Austria and Italy 
report that only 74 flights have taken place between those dates 
and that operations officers at Hoersching and Tulln airfields 
have thoroughly briefed all crews to use approved routes avoid- 
ing Yugoslavia. 

It would be assumed that the authorities of Yugoslavia would 
wish to render a maximum of assistance and succor to aircraft 



208 

of a friendly nation when the latter are forced by the hazards 
of navigation in bad weather over dangerous mountain barriers 
to deviate from their course and seek bearings over Yugoslav 
territory. On the contrary, Yugoslav fighter aircraft have seen 
fit without previous warning to take aggressive action against 
such a United States transport plane, the identification of which 
was clearly apparent from its markings, and have forced it to 
crash land after wounding one of its passengers. Subsequently 
Yugoslav authorities have detained the plane, its crew and 
passengers and refused to permit American consular officers 
access to the plane or personnel until specific representations 
were made by the United States Embassy to the latter effect. 
Finally, no reply has been forthcoming to the Embassy's re- 
quests that the crew, passengers and plane be released from 
detention and the personnel permitted to depart from Yugo- 
slavia without delay. Meanwhile, it is reported from Trieste 
that a second United States plane en route to Italy from Austria 
is missing after having last reported itself under machine gun 
attack. 

The Embassy is instructed to protest most emphatically 
against this action and attitude of the Yugoslav authorities, to 
renew the United States demand for immediate release of the 
passengers and crew now able to travel, and in conclusion to 
request an urgent Yugoslav statement whether in the future the 
United States Government can expect that the Yugoslav 
Government will accord the usual courtesies, including the right 
of innocent passage over Yugoslav territory, to United States 
aircraft when stress of weather necessitates such deviation from 
regular routes. The Yugoslav authorities have already re- 
ceived United States assurance that United States planes will 
not cross Yugoslavia without prior clearance except when forced 
to do so by circumstances over which they have no control. 
The United States Government, pending receipt of detailed 
information regarding injury to persons on these two planes and 
the cost of repairing planes, fully reserves its position in matters 
of claims for compensation. 

b. The Acting Secretary of State to the Yugoslav Charge 
d' Affaires in Washington, 21 August 1946 

(15 Department of State Bulletin, p. 417.) 

Sir: The American Embassy in Belgrade has informed me of 
the contents of the message received from the Yugoslav Foreign 
Office on August 20. The replies of the Yugoslav Government 



209 



to our inquiries are wholly unsatisfactory to the Government 
and shocking to the people of the United States. 

Your government expresses regret because of what you call 
an unhappy "accident." Your government is aware that this 
was no accident; that a fighter plane of your government delib- 
erately fired upon a passenger plane of the United States Gov- 
ernment. Your government states that one reason for the 
"accident" was that since August 10th there have been forty- 
four instances where American planes flew over Yugoslav terri- 
tory. The records show that since August 10 the total number 
of flights scheduled for that route was only thirty-two. These 
flights were made under instructions to avoid flying over Yugo- 
slav territory and if in any instance a plane was over Yugoslav 
territory it was only because the pilot was forced by bad weather 
outside of the corridor. 

But this attack of August 19th was not the first. On August 
9 a United States passenger plane while in the vicinity of 
Klagenfurt was fired upon by a fighter plane of the Yugoslav 
Government. It was forced to make a crash landing. When 
it landed, the crew and passengers were taken into custody by 
Yugoslav authorities and are still held as prisoners of the Yugo- 
slav Government. 

For some days the representative of the United States Gov- 
ernment was unable to communicate with these American citi- 
zens. Finally he was permitted to do so but only in the presence 
of the military authorities of Yugoslavia. Twelve days have 
passed and these American citizens are still held by Yugoslavia. 

The message now received from our representative indicates 
that on the 19th of August when this second passenger plane 
was fired upon, some if not all, of the occupants were killed. 
They met their death not by "accident" but by the deliberate 
acts of Yugoslav authorities. The excuse given for taking the 
lives of these American citizens is that the plane in which they 
were travelling was a few kilometers inside of Yugoslav terri- 
tory. Your government asserts that for twelve minutes prior 
to the attack the pilot of the plane was "invited" to land. At 
the time you claim the pilot was "invited" to land the records 
at Klagenfurt show the pilot advised the Klagenfurt station that 
he was over Klagenfurt, which is well outside of Yugoslav terri- 
tory, and was all right. 

These outrageous acts have been perpetrated by a govern- 
ment that professes to be a friendly nation. Until we have had 
opportunity to confer with the survivors of these two attacks 



210 



and we receive such other evidence as is available, we make no 
statement as to the exact location of the two planes when they 
were attacked. 

Regardless of whether the planes were a short distance within 
or without the corridor, they were unarmed passenger planes en 
route to Udine, in Italy. Their flight in no way constituted a 
threat to the sovereignty of Yugoslavia. The use of force by 
Yugoslavia under the circumstances was without the slightest 
justification in international law, was clearly inconsistent with 
relations between friendly states, and was a plain violation of 
the obligations resting upon Yugoslavia under the Charter of 
the United Nations not to use force except in self-defense. At 
no time did the Yugoslav Government advise the United States 
Government that if one of its planes should, because of weather 
conditions, be forced a mile or two outside of the corridor or, 
because of mechanical troubles, should find itself outside of that 
corridor, the Yugoslav Government would shoot to death the 
occupants of the plane. The deliberate firing without warning 
on the unarmed passenger planes of a friendly nation is in the 
judgment of the United States an offense against the law of 
nations and the principles of humanity. 

Therefore the Government of the United States demands that 
you immediately release the occupants of these planes now in 
your custody and that you insure their safe passage beyond the 
borders of Yugoslavia. 

The Government of the United States also demands that its 
representatives be permitted to communicate with any of the 
occupants of the two planes who are still alive. 

If within forty-eight hours from the receipt of this note by 
the Yugoslav Government these demands are complied with, 
the United States Government will determine its course in the 
light of the evidence then secured and the efforts of the Yugoslav 
Government to right the wrong done. 

If, however, within that time these demands are not complied 
with, the United States Government will call upon the Security 
Council of the United Nations to meet promptly and to take 
appropriate action. 

c. The Yugoslav Prime Minister to the American Ambas- 
sador in Belgrade, 23 August 1946 

(15 Department of State Bulletin, p. 419.) 

Excellency: With reference to our yesterday conversation 
have the honor to advise you as follows 



211 

Regarding the factual state I have nothing to add to the note 
to the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affaires No. 9860 of Aug- 
ust 20, but solely that subsequent reports do not confirm the 
first ones according to which two members of the crew would 
have bailed out in parachutes. It appears now that the para- 
chuting object eye-witnesses mistook for occupants of the plane 
might have been two gasoline barrels wrapped in two sheets. 
Investigation still being carried out. 

It is not possible for the moment to produce a definite detailed 
report of what had happened apart from that I can on this occa- 
sion emphasize only once again the statements of the Ministry's 
note quoted above which correctly described the circumstances 
which were causing this regrettable occurrence. In connection 
with the statements put forth during our conversation yester- 
day, I have first to point out that it is not correct that the plane 
had only been a mile or two within Yugoslav territory in the 
moment when forced down. The plane was 50 kilometers from 
the nearest point on the frontier. Further I have to underline 
once more that the Yugoslav fighters were, during almost a 
quarter of an hour time, inciting the plane to land. They also 
wanted to show the route to the airport only three miles far 
away but the aircraft definitely refused compliance with the 
landing order. Accordingly it does not correspond with the 
facts the Yugoslav fighters had not warned the plane nor is it 
correct that the plane had been forced because of weather con- 
ditions to deviate from its course. It is notorious in the coun- 
try where the accident took place that the day was absolutely 
clear and of perfect visibility. 

As for the occupants of the plane forced down August 9, once 
the investigation got terminated the Yugoslav Government sus- 
pended on August 21 any movement limitation imposed upon 
the persons concerned. During, and for the purpose of the in- 
vestigation itself, Mr. Hohenthal, the American Consul, was 
informed thereof and at 7:30 hours on August 22 he took over. 
It is evident that they are allowed to leave Yugoslavia whenever 
they want to. Your Government may also, of course, dispose 
at any time over the aircraft question. 

As for the occupants of the plane which crashed on August 19, 
as already mentioned, none has been found so far. The Yugoslav 
Government will be only glad to permit the representative of 
your Government to communicate with any of them who might 
have survived. 

Respectfully yours, 

August 23 J. B. Tito. 



212 



d. The Yugoslav Prime Minister to the American Ambas- 

sador in Belgrade, 31 August 1946 

(15 Department of State Bulletin, p. 505.) 

No. 10381 

Belgrade, August 31, 1946. 

Excellency: With reference to our conversation in Bled on 
August 22, 1946, as well as to the statements I made on that 
occasion on behalf of the Government of the Federative Peoples 
Republic of Yugoslavia, not all of which have been laid down in 
my written reply of August 23, I have to confirm herewith: 

{One) The Government of the Federative Peoples Republic of 
Yugoslavia regrets indeed that American pilots lost their lives 
at the accident of August 19, near Bled, when an American mili- 
tary transport plane crashed after disobeying signals to land; 

(Two) As I already stated both orally and in writing to Anglo- 
American correspondents, I have issued orders to our military 
authorities to the efTect that no transport planes must be fired at 
any more, even if they might intentionally fly over our territory 
without proper clearance, but that in such cases they should be 
invited to land; if they refused to do so their identity should be 
taken and the Yugoslav Government informed hereof so that 
any necessary steps could be undertaken through appropriate 
channels. 

I also confirm my statement made on that occasion, on behalf 
of the Government of the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugo- 
slavia that I consider objectless the American Government's 
note which was, to our surprise, unnecessarily and without rea- 
son too strong towards an Allied country as is Yugoslavia; the 
Government of the Federative Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia 
had ordered 24 hours prior to the handing over of the said note 
that the crew of the plane be released and that they be allowed 
to leave this country. The crew had been taken over by Mr. 
Hohenthal, the American Consul at 7:30 hours of August 22, 
i.e. full 8 hours before the note in connection with that crew 
was handed over. 

Respectfully yours, 

Tito MP. 

e. The Acting Secretary of State to the Yugoslav Charge 
d'affaires in Washington, 3 September 1946 (excerpts) 

(15 Department of State Bulletin, p. 501.) 
Sir: I refer to a note dated August 30, 1946 which you left 



213 



at the Department of State in regard to alleged flights of United 
States planes over Yugoslav territory. In your note you refer to 
several notes of protest to the United States Government re- 
questing that flights over Yugoslav territory be stopped and 
that inquiries be undertaken toward establishing those respon- 
sible .... 

In summary, the Yugoslav Government has alleged that over 
the period from July 16 to August 29 278 unauthorized flights 
were made over Yugoslav territory, a high proportion of those 
flights being by bombers and fighters. 

The United States Government has made a thorough and 
comprehensive investigation of these alleged flights over Yugo- 
slav territory. In the course of this investigation the records 
of the various military headquarters and establishments of the 
United States in Europe were checked and the whereabouts of 
every American military plane in Europe during the period 
July 16 to August 29, inclusive was established. As a result of 
this exhaustive investigation, I am now in a position to provide 
you with the facts in regard to flights of American planes .... 

[The Acting Secretary of State reviewed the results of the investigation and 
reached the conclusion that the violations of Yugoslav territory must have 
been made by planes other than United States planes.] 

No American planes have flown over Yugoslavia intentionally 
without advance approval of Yugoslav authorities unless forced 
to do so in an emergency. I presume that the Government of 
Yugoslavia recognizes that in case a plane and its occupants are 
jeopardized, the aircraft may change its course so as to seek 
safety even though such action may result in flying over Yugo- 
slav territory without prior clearance. 

Two unarmed American transport planes have been shot down 
by Yugoslav fighters. The first incident occurred on August 
9th. The pilot of this plane was specifically instructed to fly 
over Klagenfurt to Udine via Tarvisio, carefully avoiding Yugo- 
slav*territory. The weather information available to this pilot 
was inaccurate and he encountered heavy clouds, icing and high 
winds on his route. When he emerged into clear weather he 
believed that his plane was northwest of Udine in Italy. Actu- 
ally, while under instrument flight conditions he had drifted oif 
his course into Yugoslavia. The plane was then approached by 
three Yugoslav fighters. These fighters made no signal which 
could be interpreted as a landing signal. They did wobble their 
wings which, according to United States practice is the accepted 
signal to attract attention to the plane making the signal. The 



214 

Yugoslav fighters then attacked without any warning whatso- 
ever. The transport plane then descended rapidly in an effort 
to land but was fired on during the descent. After the plane 
landed the passengers and crew were held from August 9 to 
August 22 by the Yugoslav authorities. During this period the 
passengers and crew were questioned frequently and the Yugo- 
slav questioners attempted to persuade individuals to delete 
from their statements any reference to the bad weather they had 
encountered and were asked to include statements as to the 
satisfactory care afforded. The foregoing statements are taken 
from the report of the pilot and crew of the plane made after 
their release by Yugoslav authorities. 

On August 19 an unarmed American transport aircraft left 
Vienna for Italy. In accordance with standard practice, the 
pilot was carefully instructed as to his route. These instruc- 
tions included a directive to avoid Yugoslavia. It is impossible 
to give complete information as to what occurred on this flight. 
The pilot and crew of this unarmed American transport are dead, 
shot down by Yugoslav armed aircraft. 

The Yugoslav Government has already received assurances 
from the United States Government that the United States 
planes will not cross Yugoslav territory without prior clearance 
from Yugoslav authorities except when forced to do so by cir- 
cumstances over which there is no control such as bad weather, 
loss of direction, and mechanical trouble. Assurances along 
these lines were repeated in the note which the American Am- 
bassador gave the Yugoslav Government on August 21, 1946. 
Standing orders in this sense governing the activities of Ameri- 
can planes have been enforced throughout the period referred to 
in the several recent notes from the Yugoslav Government al- 
leging violations of Yugoslav territory by American planes. 
These orders have, in fact, been carried out at all American air 
stations in central, southern and eastern Europe from which 
American planes fly in the vicinity of Yugoslavia, and will con- 
tinue to be carried out in the future. 

I do not believe that it would serve a useful purpose for me 
to add to the views which were expressed in the note which the 
Acting Secretary of State handed you on August 21 last in regard 
to the action of the Yugoslav Government in shooting down the 
two American transport planes on August 9 and August 19. 
Marshall Tito in his conversation with Ambassador Patterson 
on August 22 expressed his regret at the loss of American lives. 
I have noted the efforts of the Yugoslav authorities in the search 



215 



for the bodies of the five crew members and the honors shown 
the remains which were recovered. Marshall Tito further in- 
formed Ambassador Patterson of his order recited in your note 
of August 30 that Yugoslav planes should not fire on planes that 
might fly over Yugoslav territory. 

The Yugoslav Government has released the crew and passen- 
gers of the transport plane which was forced down on August 9 
with the exception of the wounded Turkish officer who was a 
passenger on the plane and is still in the hospital. I have been 
informed that the Yugoslav Government has advised the Turk- 
ish authorities that this Turkish officer is free to leave Yugoslavia 
when he is able to travel and that your Government has ex- 
pressed its regrets concerning his injury. 

The United States Government was glad to receive the assur- 
ances contained in Marshall Tito's note dated August 31st to 
Ambassador Patterson. The full text of that note reads as 
follows: . . . 

[The text of the Yugoslav note to the American Ambassador in Belgrade of 
31 August 1946 is reproduced in full.] 

With reference to Marshall Tito's proposal for an agreement 
on signals, United States military representatives would wel- 
come a discussion of this question and are prepared to meet 
Yugoslav military representatives at such time and place as 
your Government may designate, in order to reach an agreement 
regarding the signals to be employed. 

I am constrained to advise you that the United States Govern- 
ment has confidently expected that expressions of Yugoslav 
regrets respecting the loss of members of the crew, who were 
killed as a consequence of the action of Yugoslav armed forces, 
would be accompanied by an offer to make suitable indemnifica- 
tion to the families and dependents of the unfortunate victims 
of such Yugoslav action. My Government expects that such 
indemnification will be made by the Yugoslav Government, as 
well as compensation for the destruction of and damage to the 
United States planes and other property caused by the two 
Yugoslav attacks. 

Accept [etc.] William L. Clayton, 

Acting Secretary. 

f. United States Department of State Press Release, 

9 October 1946 

(15 Department of State Bulletin, p. 725.) 
Upon instructions from the Department of State, the Ameri- 



216 



can Ambassador to Yugoslavia on October 8 delivered a note to 
the Yugoslav Government acknowledging the receipt of $150,000 
as indemnity for the lives of the five American aviators who were 
killed when their unarmed transport plane was shot down over 
Yugoslavia on August 19. The note further stated that, in 
compliance with the request of the Yugoslav Government, the 
United States Government would distribute this sum in five 
equal payments of $30,000 each to the families of the deceased. 
The note added, however, that the United States Government 
could not accept the Yugoslav contention that the Yugoslav 
Government has no responsibility for the loss of the unarmed 
transports shot down on August 9 and 19, that these planes did 
not fly over Yugoslavia illegally but for reasons beyond their 
control resulting from adverse weather conditions and that there- 
fore the United States Government must ask the Yugoslav 
Government to reconsider its refusal to make compensation for 
the loss of the two aircraft. 



y/ DECLARATIONS CONCERNING ANTARCTIC 

TERRITORIES 

Note. Since 1908, several States have claimed sovereignty over parts of 
the Antartic Continent, on the basis of discovery, of exploration, of propin- 
quity, or of the sector principle. For a discussion of the legal problems in- 
volved, see Naval War College, International Law Situations, 1937, pp. 67-131; 
Naval War College, Jurisdiction over Polar Areas (1937). The United States 
has made no such claims; it has not recognized the claims made by other States, 
and as occasion has arisen it has reserved its rights. The only area in Ant- 
artiea to which no official claim has yet been made is the sector between 90° 
and 150° west longitude; this sector has been explored by American nationals, 
who have made unofficial claims on behalf of the United States. 

In addition to the States whose declarations are set out below, other States 
have shown interest in Antarctica; mention may be made of the Belgian ex- 
pedition in 1898-99, the Swedish expedition in 1902, and the German expedi- 
tions in 1901-03 and 1938-39. The later German expedition made an unofficial 
claim to approximately 230,000 square miles of territory lying within the area 
previously claimed by Norway (V. Stefansson, "Exploration and Discovery," 
Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook, 1940, p. 272). A resolution of the All- 
Union Geographical Society of the Soviet Union of 11 February 1949 alluded to 
the expedition of Fabian von Bellingshausen, a Russian who circumnavigated 
Antarctica in 1819-1920, and stated that the Soviet Union has an incontro- 
vertible right to participate in the settlement of Antarctic questions (New York 
Times, 12 February 1949, p. 7). 

1. Argentine Republic 

Note. In 1904 the Argentine Republic took control of a meterorological 
observatory in the South Orkneys, within the area claimed by Great Britain 
as the Falkland Islands Dependencies. In 1925 the Argentine Government 
built a wireless station in the South Orkneys, and notified the International 
Bureau of the Telegraphic Union of its establishment; protests were made by 
the British Ambassador at Buenos Aires in notes of 24 July 1925 and 8 September 
1927. Replies by the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations and Worship 
of 30 November 1925 and 15 December 1927 asserted Argentine sovereignty 
over the Islands, based on continuous and effective occupation. Argentine 
Republic, Memoria del Ministerio de Relacianes Exteriores y Culto, 1927, pp. 
83-85. 

By a note of 14 September 1927, translated below, the Argentine General 
Director of Posts and Telegraphs notified the Director of the Universal Postal 
Union that Argentine territorial sovereignty extended to "the archipelagos of 
Los Estados, Ano Nuevo, South Georgia, and the South Orkneys, and to polar 
territories which have not been delimited." Protest was made by the British 
Government on 17 December 1927. Argentine Republic Memoria del Min- 
sterio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, 1927, pp. 85-88. Unofficial Argentine 
sources have claimed the sector between 20° and 68° west longitude (V. Stefans- 
son, "Exploration and Discovery," Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook, 1940, 
p. 271). 

855422—50 15 

217 



218 



A National Commission of the Antarctic, created by a presidential decree 
of 15 July 1939, was given a permanent character by a presidential decree of 
30 April 1940. On 5 June 1940 the Commission submitted to the Minister of 
Foreign Relations an extensive report dealing with explorations of the Ant- 
arctic region, its geological, geographical, and economic aspects, Argentine 
rights there, and a program to be carried out by the national authorities. 
Argentine Republic, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exterior es y Culto, 
1939-1940, I, p. 482. 

Apparently the first definite official Argentine pronouncemnt on the bound- 
aries of its claim was in a note of 3 June 1946 to the Government of the United 
Kingdom, translated below, which referred to the Argentine Republic's "indis- 
putable right to the lands situated south of the 60th parallel between the 
meridans of 25° and 68°34' of west longitude." On 12 March 1947 the Na- 
tional Commission of the Antarctic issued a publication in which the Argentine 
sector is described as "that situated between the 25th and 74th meridans of 
longitude west of Greenwich, to the south of 60° south latitude" (Argentine 
Republic, Boletin del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, March 1947, 
p. 103). An official map published by the Military Geographic Institute in 
1947 also shows the sector south of 60° south latitude between 25° and 74° 
west longitude as Argentine (ibid., January 1948, p. 155; Argentine News, 
January-February-March 1947.) 

A Chilean decree of 6 November 1940 proclaiming sovereignty over the 
Antarctic led to negotiations between the Argentine Republic and Chile. 

a. The Director of Argentine Posts and Telegraphs 
to the Director of the Universal Postal Union, 14 
September 1927 

(Argentine Republic, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones 
Exteriores y Culto, 1927, p. 88.) 
[Translation] 

Buenos Aires, 14 September 1927. 

Mr. Director: With reference to your circular letter number 
2.122/53 of last 22 March concerning a request for information 
concerning the territorial jurisdiction of each administration of 
the Postal Union, I have the honor to request you to inform the 
various offices of the Postal Union that Argentine territorial 
jurisdiction extends de jure and de facto to the continental area, 
to the territorial sea and the islands situated along the maritime 
coast, to a part of the Island of Tierra del Fuego, to the archi- 
pelagos of Los Estados, Ario Nuevo, 1 South Georgia, and South 
Orkneys, and to polar territories which have not been delimited. 

De jure, the Archipelago of the Malvinas [Falklands] also be- 
longs to this jurisdiction, but it cannot be exercised de facto 
because of the occupation maintained by Great Britain. 

Please accept, Mr. Director, the assurances of my high con- 
sideration. 



1 These islands lie off the coast of Tierra del Fuego. [Ed.] 



219 

For the Director General, the Chief of the International 
Service: 

Luis M. Camusi. 

b. Presidential Decree, 30 April 1940 

(Decree No. 61.852, Boletin Oficial, 8 November 1941, p. 2.) 
[Translation] 

Whereas this Government on last 15 July issued Decree No. 
53.821, creating a Commission composed of representatives of 
the Ministries of Foreign Relations and Worship, of the Navy, 
and of Agriculture, with the object of assuring an adequate 
participation of the Republic in the International Polar Expo- 
sition and in the Congress of Arctic Explorers convoked by the 
Government of Norway for October of this year; and 

Whereas later the inviting Government made it known that 
the aforesaid meetings had been postponed sine die, and 

Considering: 

That the work done by the Commission has clearly shown it 
to be desirable that an organization of permanent activity, with 
members of a stable character, should centralize and take into 
its charge the consideration of the giving of advice concerning 
all matters which require the protection and development of 
national interests n the Antarctic Zone and the Antarctic Conti- 
nent, and 

With attention to the information communicated by the De- 
partment of Foreign Relations and W 7 orship, of the Navy, and 
of Agriculture, 

The President of the Argentine Nation, in a General Accord 
of Ministers 

decrees: 

Article 1. A National Commission of the Antarctic, which 
will centralize and take in charge the consideration of and giving 
of advice concerning all matters relative to the protection and 
development of Argentine interests in the Antarctic, shall be 
created with permanent character and shall be dependent upon 
the Ministry of Foreign Relations and Worship. 

Article 2. The Commission will continue the studies of 
overall character which it has undertaken concerning the present 
state of the problems of the Antarctic and their connection with 
Argentine interests, and will propose to the Executive Power a 
plan of action which will include all aspects of this matter, both 
of an internal and international order. 



220 

Article 3. The M nistries and Dependencies and the com- 
petent Institutes will directly assist the National Commission 
of the Antarctic with the documentation and advice which it 
requests of them for the better fulfillment of its task. . . . 

Ortiz. — Jose Maria Canti o. — Diogenes Taboada. — Pedro 
Groppo. — Carlos D. Marques. — Leon L. Scasso. — Jorge E. 
Coll. — Luis A. Barberis. — Cosme Massini Ezcurra. 

c. The Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations 
to the Chilean Ambassador, 12 November 1940 

(Argentine Republic, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, 
1940-1941, p. 407; Chile, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y 
Comercio, 1940, p. 443.) 

[Translation] 

Buenos Aires, 12 November 1940. 

Mr. Ambassador: This Ministry has taken cognizance, 
through the communication of its Charge d'Affaires in Santiago, 
of the note verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Chile, 
dated the 6th instant, which contains information of the Decree 
of Your Excellency's Government of the same date, which deter- 
mines the limits of Chilean territory in the Antarctic. 

In thanking you for this communication, which has been the 
object of careful study, I wish to express to Your Excellency the 
satisfaction with which, at the same time, this Government 
learned, from the proposals formulated by the Minister of 
Foreign Relations of Chile to the Argentine representative con- 
templating the revision of these boundaries by means of a com- 
mon examination of the question by both countries, that in 
establishing them there was no intention to violate Argentine 
rights. 

The Argentine Republic has for a ong time recognized the 
importance which must be attached to the problem of the Ant- 
arctic and to the national interests bound up with it, which have 
materialized for the present in the well-known occupation which 
this Republic has exercised within the zone for the past thirty- 
seven years, by the maintenance of the Observatory of the 
[South] Orkneys. Thus, upon the creation on 15 July 1939 of 
the Antarctic Commission, which was given a permanent char- 
acter by the Decree of 30 April 1940 "in order to give attention 
to matters which require the fostering and expediting of national 
interests in the Antarctic zone and continent," this Government 
could announce that — without taking account of divers expedi- 
tions made by its navy — "Argentina is the only country in the 



221 



world which maintains a permanent observatory in the antarctic 
regions, and the work of this observatory, which has augmented 
for more than thirty years, has come to be of inestimable value 
in the field of un versal science." By reason of this effective 
and continuous occupation which has gone on since 1904, the 
inhabited place which is nearest to the South Pole is Argentine, 
and our country is the only one "which has lived there for 37 
years and the only one, consequently, which maintains in real 
form the rule of its sovereignty in the lands of the Antarctic." 

Argentine rights, moreover, are not solely dependent upon the 
principal fact of this occupation. They are also justified under 
the subsidiary systems admitted for the attribution of those 
zones. By reason of the geographical propinquity of both the 
continental territory of Argentina and of the archipelago of the 
Malvinas [Falklands] which is also part of the national soil, it 
would be difficult for another nation to take the place of Argen- 
tina on the ground that it had better rights with respect to the 
attribution of the ownership of this zone. Argentina's title also 
could scarcely be disputed if the question is to be solved on the 
basis of the sector which is a prolongation of the American 
continent. 

This same criterion was the basis of the observations made by 
the Argentine Government to the Government of His Britannic 
Majesty last September 11th, when this Government, by reason 
of a map of the Antarctic published by the Government of 
Australia, suggested the calling of an international conference 
for the determination of the legal and political status of that 
region. Moreover, on the occasion of a plan of collaboration 
suggested by the Government of the United States with respect 
to the voyage of Rear Admiral Byrd to the Antarctic zone, the 
Argentine Chancellery informed that Government by a note of 
last March 9th of the rights which our country claims in those 
regions. 

Asanas already been made clear on the above-mentioned occa- 
sion, it is the opinion of the Argentine Government that the 
situation created by unilateral attributions of sectors in the 
Antarctic made by various States, among which Chile must now 
be ranked, can only reach a satisfactory international solution 
through the calling of a conference of the interested States and 
the agreement of all of them on the basis of their just rights and 
titles. In view of all the antecedents which support its own 
rights and titles, the Argentine Government could without 
doubt have justly issued a declaration of the same class, did it 



222 

not think that because such a declaration would be unilateral it 
would not have improved such rights and titles in any way. By 
this same criterion, the Argentine Government cannot witness 
the declaration which the Government of Chile has just formu- 
lated without making reservations, but certainly does not intend 
to deny the right of that friendly country to invoke rights over 
a sector of the zone in question. 

Happily the suggestion with which the Chancellery of Chile 
followed its communication of its declaration, to the effect that 
the competent organs of the two countries should enter into 
contact to agree on a solution which would be agreeable to the 
aspirations of both, allows us, in accordance with the best tradi- 
tion of our relations, to revise and fix by common accord the line 
which will separate our just claims. The Argentine Govern- 
ment accepts, therefore, the friendly suggestion of the Govern- 
ment of Chile, in the hope that the agreement which will be 
reached will also serve to strengthen the rights of the two 
countries against other competing nations. 

Accept, Excellency, the expression of my highest and most 
distinguished consideration. 

Julio A. Roca. 

To His Excellency don Conrado Rios Gallardo, Ambassador 
of Chile. 

d. The Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations 
to the British Ambassador, 3 June 1946 

(Argentine Republic, Boletin del Ministerio de Relaciones Exterior es y Culto, 

September 1946, pp. 16-18.) 
[Translation] 

Buenos Aires, 3 June 1946. 

Mr. Ambassador: This Ministry has just been informed by 
its Embassy in London that the Government of Great Britain 
has issued a new series of postage stamps of the Malvinas Islands 
[Falklands] and their geographical dependencies, which have 
been ordered to be on sale beginning 5 April of this year. The 
Argentine press has also recently published a reproduction of 
these stamps, in the part of whose design which corresponds to 
the Antarctic sector, between the 20° and 80° meridians, the 
[South] Georgias, [South] Orkneys, [South] Shetlands and other 
islands appear to be joined to the Malvinas. 

Your Excellency's Government well knows that the Argentine 
Republic has never at any time surrendered the just right which 
supports its claim to a portion of territory of its own dominions — 



223 

the Falkland Islands — by virtue of geographical, historic, and 
juridical rights which it would be superfluous to set out in detail. 
To this is added its indisputable right to the lands situated south 
of the 60th parallel between the meridians of 25° and 68°34 / 
west longitude. It is especially fitting to recall, in this connec- 
tion, among the representations which have been made, the 
formal reservation made in general terms by a note of September 
1940 addressed to your diplomatic mission, with regard to the 
publication by the Commonwealth of Australia of a map of the 
Antarctic; the reservations made personally, in February 1943 — 
confirmed by a written memorandum of the same month — by 
the then Minister of Foreign Relations to Your Excellency's 
predecessor, with respect to acts of possession carried out in 
these lands by British authorities; and finally the most recent 
reservation, made on 29 December 1945 by the undersigned, 
with respect to a note of your Embassy evoked by the declara- 
tions of an Argentine delegate in the San Francisco Conference. 
On each of these occasions the Argentine Government was able 
to take action appropriate to the situation which had been 
created and to protect fully its imprescriptible right. 

In this last communication to Your Excellency's mission this 
Government stated that its permanent desire was to maintain 
unalterably with the Government of Great Britain the tradi- 
tional good relations of friendship which have always existed 
between the two countries. But it also has an inescapable obli- 
gation to safeguard, whenever the situation requires, indisput- 
able rights over portions of its territorial patrimony, by formu- 
lating the appropriate reservations. And under these circum- 
stances and within these limits I now repeat this statement to 
Your Excellency with reference to the issue of the above-men- 
tioned postage stamps. 

At the same time it is my duty to inform Your Excellency 
that the Argentine Government has taken steps to inform the 
Universal Postal Union, as it did in 1943 on the occasion of the 
issue of British stamps commemorating the centenary of the 
occupation of the Malvinas, that correspondence coming to the 
Republic which bears these stamps will be considered as lacking 
postage, and the appropriate sanctions will be applied to it. 

I repeat to Your Excellency in this regard the assurances of 
my most distinguished consideration. 

Juan I. Cooke. 

To His Excellency the Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni- 
potentiary of Great Britain, Sir Reginald Leeper. 



224 

2. Chile 

Note. The presidential decree of 6 November 1940 was communicated to 
the Governments of the Argentine Republic, the United States, and Japan. 
The Argentine Republic made a reservation of its rights in the note of 12 Novem- 
ber 1940, leading to the negotiations described in section 3, post. The Japanese 
Government also made a reservation of its rights in a note of 13 November 1940; 
the Chilean Government in a note of 29 November 1940, translated below, 
refused to accept this reservation. The reply of the United States has not been 
published. 

a. Presidential Decree, 6 November 1940 

(Decree No. 1747, 109 Boletin de Leyes y Decretos del Gobierno, p. 2440 (1940); 
Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Comercio, 1940, p. 440.)" 

.'■•-•. *'..-•"'".'■•• x;oi-'*"'--.'''^. 

[Translation] 

Considering: 

That it is the duty of the State to fix its boundaries with 
precision; 

That up to the present the boundaries of Chilean territory 
in the direction that it is prolonged into the polar region called 
the American Antarctic have not been made precise; 

That this Ministry gave public notice in 1906 that the de- 
limitation of the above-mentioned territory was the subject of 
studies which had been begun, but which were not yet com- 
pleted; 

That the present state of such studies permits a determination 
to be made with respect to this matter; 

That the Special Commission named by Decree No. 1541 of 
7 September 1939, of this Ministry has established the boun- 
daries of the Chilean Antarctic territory in conformity with the 
date furnished by the geographical, historical, juridical, and 
diplomatic antecedents which have been compared and which 
have been accumulated up to the present. 

Degrees: 

The Chilean Antarctic or Chilean Antarctic Territory is 
formed by all lands, islands, islets, reefs, pack-ice, etc., known 
and to be discovered, and their respective territorial seas, lying 
within the limit of the sector constituted by the meridians of 53° 
longitude west of Greenwich and 90° west of Greenwich. 

This decree shall be registered, communicated, published, 
and inserted in the Bulletin of the Laws and Decrees of the 
Government.— AGUIRRE CERDA.— Marcial Mora M. 



225 

b. The Chilean Ministry of Foreign Relations to the 
• Japanese Legation, 29 November 1940 

(Chile, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Comercio, 

1940, p. 450.) 
[Translation] 

The Ministry of Foreign Relations and Commerce presents its 
compliments to the Legation of Japan and has the honor to 
acknowledge receipt of the note verbale of the 13th instant, by 
which the Legation in accordance with instructions received 
from its Government notifies this Ministry, with respect to 
Decree No. 1747 of the 6th instant, which fixed the limits of 
the Chilean Antarctic, "that Japan considers itself one of the 
countries which have an interest and rights in the said zone, for 
which reason it reserves the right to assert its point of view in 
this matter." 

In reply, the Ministry of Foreign Relations and Commerce 
thinks it necessary to state the following: 

The Government of Chile, which is animated by the most 
cordial intentions toward the Japanese Government, regrets 
that it cannot accept the reservation of rights formulated 
by the Japanese Government with respect to territories which 
are situated in the American Hemisphere, and which belong to 
our country geographically and by virtue of historic rights and 
notorious acts of possession. 

Moreover it is clearly established that the aforementioned 
Decree did not assert our claims to zones which could be con- 
sidered "res nullius," but rather marked a frontier line in 
definitely Chilean lands and seas whose boundaries were till 
then undetermined with respect to regions to which the Argen- 
tine Republic could claim title by virtue of its propinquity on 
the eastern side, and to which the United States could calim 
title to the West. 

The Government of Chile believes that the western meridian 
of the triangle which encloses its antarctic territories, which is 
90° longitude west of Greenwich, can in no case interfere with 
lands or seas in which Japan has exercised or at present exercises 
jurisdiction. 

As to the eastern meridian of the above-mentioned triangle, 
which is 53° longitude west of Greenwich, it is contiguous with 
possessions of the Argentine Republic. 

Consequently the Government of Chile cannot discern on 
what basis the Government of Japan reserves its irghts in a 



226 

triangle which, starting with seas and lands which belong to the 
Republic of Chile, terminates with its vertex at the South Pole; 
which is situated within the American Antarctic; which com- 
prises regions possessed by Chile since long ago; and which 
borders to the east and west on zones occupied by Argentina 
and by the United States. 

In virtue of the foregoing considerations, the Government of 
Chile entertains the hope that the Government of Japan will 
recognize the justice which supports us and will not insist on its 
reservation. 

The Ministry of Foreign Relations and Commerce takes this 
occasion to reiterate to the Legation of Japan the assurances of 
its distinguished consideration. 

Santiago, 29 November 1940. 

3. Chile and the Argentine Republic 

Note. By a presidential decree of 6 November 1940, translated ante, 
Chile proclaimed its sovereignty over a sector of the Antarctic. By a note of 
12 November 1940, also translated above, the Argentine Minister of Foreign 
Relations and Worship expressed the reservations of his government with 
respect to the Chilean decree, but accepted Chilean proposals for negotiation. 
These negotiations were without substantial result until on 12 July 1947 a 
joint declaration on the Antarctic was signed at Buenos Aires by the Ministers 
of Foreign Relations of the two countries. Further negotiations led to the 
signing on 4 March 1948 at Santiago de Chile of another joint declaration on 
the Antarctic; the treaty of demarcation of boundaries envisaged has yet been 
concluded. 

a. Joint Declaration on the Antarctic, 
Buenos Aires, 12 July 1947 

(Argentine Republic, Boletin del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, 

January 1948, p. 156.) 
[Translation] 

The Ministers of Foreign Relations of the Argentine Republic 
and of Chile, having met at Buenos Aires, and animated by the 
intention to initiate a friendly policy for the determination of 
the frontier of both States in the Antarctic region, have agreed 
to declare, convinced as they are of the indisputable rights of 
sovereignty of the Argentine Republic and of Chile over the 
South American Antarctic, that they favor the realization of a 
harmonious plan of action of both governments for the purpose 
of securing better scientific knowledge of the Antarctic Zone by 
means of explorations and technical studies; and that, in the 
same way, they consider appropriate a common effort in matters 
relating to the utilization of the wealth of this region, and that 
it is their desire to arrive at agreement as soon as possible on 



227 



an Argentine-Chilean treaty of demarcation of boundaries in 
the South American Antarctic. 

In faith whereof they have signed the present declaration in 
two originals in the City of Buenos Aires on the twelfth day of 
the month of July, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven. 

b. Joint Declaration on the Antarctic, 
Santiago de Chile, 4 March 1948 

(Argentine Republic, Boletin del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, 

March 1948, p. 11.) 
[Translation] 

Having met in Santiago de Chile in the Ministry of Foreign 
Relations, the Minister of that department, Senor German 
Vergara Donoso, and the Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni- 
potentiary of the Argentine Republic, Doctor Pascual La Rosa, 
have agreed to state in the present joint declaration the result 
of the conversations which have taken place with respect to the 
South American Antarctic, in conformity with what had pre- 
viously been agreed upon by their respective Governments and 
with the joint declaration of 12 July 1947. 

Until a friendly agreement is concluded concerning the com- 
mon boundary line of the Antarctic territories of Chile and the 
Argentine Republic, in the names of their respective Govern- 
ments Senores Vergara Donoso and La Rosa declare: 

First: That both Governments will act in common accord in 
the juridical protection and defense of their rights in the South 
American Antarctic, which is included between the 25th and 
90th meridians of longitude west of Greenwich, and in these 
territories Chile and the Argentine Republic mutually recognize 
isdisputable rights of sovereignty. 

Second: That they are in agreement to continue their action 
of administration, exploitation, supervision, and development in 
the undefined frontier region of their respective Antarctic zones, 
in a spirit of reciprocal cooperation. 

Third: That as soon as possible and in any event in the course 
of the present year they will carry on negotiations until they 
arrive at agreement on a Chilean-Argentine treaty of demarca- 
tion of boundaries in the South American Antarctic. 

Done at Santiago, in two originals, on the fourth day of 
March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight. 

Vergara Donoso. 
Pascual La Rosa. 



228 

4. French Republic 

a. Presidential Decree, 27 March 1924 

{Journal Officiel. 29 March 1924, p. 3004.) 
[Translation] 

The President of the French Republic, in view of Article 18 
of the senatus-consult of 3 May 1854, on the proposal of the 
Minister of Colonies, 

decrees: 

Article 1. In the Crozet Archipelago and Adelie or Wilkes 
Land, mining rights, the right of hunting, and the right of fish- 
ing in territorial waters are reserved to French citizens. 

Article 2. Land establishments, the installation of floating 
factories in territorial waters, the exploitation of factories, and 
every concession of any nature whatever must be the object of 
a decree issued on the proposal of the Minister of Colonies. 

Article 3. The details of the application of the dispositions 
of the present decree will be the object of later regulations. 

Article 4. The Minister of Colonies is charged with the 
execution of the present decree. 

Done at Paris, 27 March 1924. A. Millerand. 

By the President of the Republic: 

The Minister of Colonies, 
A. Sarraut. 

b. Report of the Minister of Colonies, 

21 November 1924 

{Journal Officiel, 27 November 1924, p. 10452.) 
[Translation] 

Paris, 21 November 1924. 

Mr. President: I have the honor of submitting for your 
approval a draft decree which administratively attaches Saint 
Paul and Amsterdam Islands, the Kerguelen and Crozet Archi- 
pelagos, and Adelie Land to the Government General of Mada- 
gascar. 

These far-off parts of our colonial domain have not up to the 
present been the object of any premanent administrative organi- 
zation. In the ignorance which long prevailed cf the economic 
value of these uninhabited lands, situated apart from the great 
maritime routes, it did not appear indispensable, in truth, to 
confirm by the establishment of an effective authority the rights 
of sovereignty which France had long ago acquired over the 
archipelagos and the parts of the antarctic continent which were 
discovered by our navigators. 



229 

Scientific missions carried out at the beginning of this century 
in the southern seas have shown that these long-neglected de- 
pendencies of our overseas dominions could offer extremely 
precious resources to the heavy fishing industry; whales, seals, 
and sea-elephants are very abundant in those localities, and the 
great industrial value of the products furnished by those species 
of animals soon brought about the creation of fishing and hunt- 
ing enterprises whose first seasons were extremely fruitful. 

With a view to exercising the effective and continuous control 
which is necessary over the exploitation of these national riches, 
it appears necessary to provide for the administrative organiza- 
tion of these southern islands and lands, and to envisage, for 
this purpose, their attachment to an already established colonial 
government; and that of Madagascar appeared to me to be 
naturally designated, by reason of the geographical situation of 
that colony and of the means of action which it possesses, to 
assure the sovereign authority of France over this part of our 
colonial domain. The Governor General of Madagascar, when 
consulted concerning the principle of this attachment, declared 
that he favored this measure and has recently informed my 
department that he has decided to enter an initial credit in the 
budget of the colony, representing the participation of Mada- 
gascar in the expenses of the organization of these new dependen- 
cies of the Great Island. 

In these conditions, I have the honor to request you, Mr. 
President, to sign the attached draft decree, which places Saint 
Paul and Amsterdam Islands, the Kerguelen and Crozet Archi- 
pelagos, and Adelie Land under the authority of the Governor 
General of Madagascar and confides to this high functionary 
the task of organizing, under the control of my department, the 
effective administration of these territories. 

Please accept, Mr. President, the assurance of my profound 

The Minister of Colonies, 

Daladier. 

c. Presidential Decree, 21 November 1924 

{Journal Officiel, 27 November 1924, p. 10452.) 
[Translation] 

The President of the French Republic, in view of the senatus- 
consult of 3 May 1854; on the report of the Minister of Colonies, 

decrees: 

Article 1. Saint Paul and Amsterdam Islands, the Ker- 
guelen and Crozet Archipelagos, and Adelie Land are attached 



230 

to the Government General of Madagascar and constitute one 
of the administrative dependencies of that colony. 

Article 2. Orders of the Governor General of Madagascar 
submitted to the apporval of the Ministry of Colonies will fix 
the conditions of application of the present decree. 

Article 3. The Minister of Colonies is responsible for the 
execution of the present decree, which will be published in the 
Journaux Officiels of the French Republic and of the Colony 
of Madagascar and will be inserted in the Bulletin des lots and 
the Bulletin Officiel of the Ministry of Colonies. 

Done at Paris, 21 November 1924. 

Gaston Doumergue. 

By the President of the Republic: 
The Minister of Colonies, 
Daladier. 

d. Presidential Decree, 1 April 1938 2 

[Journal Officiel, 6 April 1938, p. 4098.) 
[Translation] 

Limits of French Territories in the Antarctic Region called 
"Adelie Land." 

The President of the French Republic, 

In view of the senatus-consult of 3 May 1854; 

In view of the decree of 21 November 1924 attaching Saint 
Paul and Amsterdam Islands, the Kerguelen and Crozet Archi- 
pelagos, and Adelie Land to the Government General of Mada- 
gascar; 

On the report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the 
Minister of Colonies, 

decrees: 

Article 1. The islands and territories situated south of the 
60-degree parallel of south latitude and between the 136-degree 

2 The title given to this decree in the Journal Officiel was Limites des territoires 
francais de la region antartique dite il Terre Adelie." The text of the decree was 
communicated to the United States, which in its reply declined to admit that 
sovereignty accrues from mere discovery. 1 Hackworth, Digest of Inter- 
national Law, p. 460. By an exchange of notes of 25 October 1938, with the 
United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, France recognized the free 
right of passage of British Commonwealth aircraft over Adelie Land on the 
understanding that reciprocal rights would be accorded to French aircraft over 
British Commonwealth territories in the Antarctic. British Treaty Series, 
No. 73 (1938). Informed of this exchange of notes, the United States reserved 
its rights. 1 Hackworth, op.cit., p. 459. 



231 

and 142-degree meridians of longitude east of Greenwich are 
under French sovereignty. 

Article 2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister 
of Colonies are charged, each as to what concerns him, with the 
execution of the present decree, which will be published in the 
Journal Officiel of the French Republic, in the Journal Officiel 
of the Colony of Madagascar, and inserted in the Bulletin 
Officiel of the industry of colonies. 

Paris, 1 April 1938. 

Albert Lebrun. 

By the President of the Republic: 
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, 

Paul-Boncour. 
The Minister of Colonies, 

Marius Moutet. 

5. Great Britain: Falkland Islands Dependencies 3 

a. Letters Patent, 21 July 1908 

(Statutory Rules and Orders, 1908, p. 1042.) 

Edward the Seventh, by the Grace of God of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, 
Emperor of India: To all to whom these Presents shall 
come, Greeting. 

Whereas the groups of islands known as South Georgia, the 
South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, 
and the territory known as Graham's Land, situated in the 
South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the fiftieth parallel of south 
latitude, and lying between the twentieth and the eightieth 
degrees of west longitude, are part of Our Dominions, and it is 
expedient that provision should be made for their government 
as Dependencies of Our Colony of the Falkland Islands. 

I. Now We do hereby declare that from and after the pub- 
lication of these Our Letters Patent in the Government Gazette 
of Our Colony of the Falkland Islands the said groups of islands 
known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shet- 
lands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the said territory of 



3 Claims to South Georgia, to the South Orkneys, and to other polar terri- 
tories included in the Falkland Island Dependencies, were advanced by the 
Argentine Republic in 1925 and 1927. Argentine Republic, Memoria del 
Ministerio de Relaciones Exterior es y Culto, 1927, pp. 83-88. 



232 



Graham's Land shall become Dependencies of Our said Colony 
of the Falkland Islands. 

II. And We do hereby further declare that from and after 
such publication as aforesaid the Governor and Commander- 
in-Chief of Our Colony of the Falkland Islands for the time 
being (herein-after called the Governor) shall be the Governor 
of South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and 
the Sandwich Islands, and the territory of Graham's Land 
(all of which are herein-after called the Dependencies); and 
We do hereby vest in him all such powers of government and 
legislation in and over the Dependencies as are from time to 
time vested in Our said Governor in and over Our Colony 
of the Falkland Islands, subject, nevertheless, to any instruc- 
tions which may from time to time be hereafter given him under 
Our Sign Manual and Signet, or through one of Our Principal 
Secretaries of State, and to such laws as are now or shall here- 
after be in force in the said Dependencies. 

III. In the event of the death or incapacity of the Governor, 
or in the event of his absence from Our Colony of the Falk- 
land Islands otherwise than for the purpose of visiting the 
Dependencies, the Officer for the time being Administering the 
Government of Our said Colony shall be Governor for the time 
being of the Dependencies. 

IV. There shall be an Executive Council for the Depend- 
encies, and the said Council shall consist of such persons as shall 
from time to time constitute the Executive Council of Our 
Colony of the Falkland Islands; and the said Council shall 
exercise the same functions in regard to all matters arising in 
connexion with the Dependencies as are exercised by the 
Executive Council of Our Colony of the Falkland Islands in 
regard to matters arising in connexion with Our said Colony 

V. It shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, 
competent for the Governor, by and with the advice and con- 
sent of the Legislative Council of Our Colony of the Falkland 
Islands, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government 
of the Dependencies. 

VI. The Governor is and shall be deemed always to have 
been authorised and empowered to make and execute, in Our 
name and on Our behalf, grants and dispositions of any Lands 
which may lawfully be granted or disposed of by Us within 
the Dependencies, either in conformity with Instructions under 
Our Sign Manual and Signet, or through one of Our Principal 



233 



Secretaries of State, or in conformity with such laws as may 
from time to time be in force in the Dependencies. 
• VII. We do hereby reserve to Us, Our Heirs and Successors, 
full power and authority from time to time to revoke, alter, 
or - --amencb -tKese Our Letters Patent as to Us or Them shall 
seem meet. 

VIII. The Governor shall cause these Our -Letters Patent to 
be published in the Government Gazette of Our Colony of the 
Falkland Islands, and the same shall thereupon come into 
force. 4 

In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be 
made Patent. Witness Ourself at Westminster, this Twenty- 
first day of July, in the Eighth year of Our Reign. 

By Warrant under the King's Sign Manual. 

Muir Mackenzie. 

b. Letters Patent, 28 March 1917. 

,t ::; ■ ; : ; (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1917, p. 1135.) 

George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions 
beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor 
of India: To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting. 
Whereas doubts have arisen as to the limits of the groups, of 
islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, ; the South 
Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, ahd the territory of 
Graham Land otherwise known as Graham's Land; and whereas 
it is expedient that provision should be made for the govern- 
ment, not only of these islands and territory but also of certain 



4 These Letters Patent were published in the Falkland Islands Gazette of 1 
September 1908. 

other Our islands and territories adjacent thereto as Depen- 
dencies of Our Colony of the Falkland Islands: 

I: Now We do hereby declare that from and after the publi- 
cation of these Our Letters Patent in the Government Gazette 
of Our Colony of the Falkland Islands, the Dependencies of Our 
said Colony shall be deemed to include and to have included all 
islands and territories whatsoever between the 20th degree of 
West longitude and the 50th degree of West longitude which are 
situated south of the 50th parallel of South latitude; and all 
islands and territories whatsoever between the 50th degree- of 
West longitude and the 80th degree of West longitude which are 
situated south of the 58th parallel of South latitude. 

855422—50 16 



234 

II. And We do hereby vest in the Governor and Comman- 
der-in-Chief of Our Colony of the Falkland Islands all such 
powers and authorities in and over the lands hereby included 
in the Dependencies of Our said Colony as are exercised by him 
over the Dependencies in virtue of certain Letters Patent bear- 
ing date at Westminster the Twenty-first day of July, 1908. 

III. We do hereby reserve to Ourselves, Our heirs and 
successors, full power and authority from time to time to revoke, 
alter or amend these Our Letters Patent as to Us or them shall 
seem meet. 

IV. The Governor shall cause these Our Letters Patent to be 
published in the Government Gazette of Our Colony of the Falk- 
land Islands and the same shall thereupon come into force. 5 

In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be 
made Patent. Witness Ourself at Westminster the Twenty- 
eight day of March in the Seventh Year of Our Reign. 

By Warrant under the King's Sign Manual. 

Schuster. 
6. Great Britain: Ross Dependency 

Note. The Byrd expeditions of 1928 and 1933 operated from a base within 
the area claimed as the Ross Dependency. In reply to a protest to various 
acts of the expedition, made by the British Ambassador in Washington, in a 
note of 29 January 1934, the Secretary of State of the United States reserved 
all rights which the United States or its citizens might have with respect to 
the matter, and said: 

"It is understood that His Majesty's Government in New Zealand bases its 
claim of sovereignty on the discovery of a portion of the region in question. . . . 
In the light of long established principles of international law, ... I cannot 
admit that sovereignty accrues from mere discovery unaccompanied by occu- 
pancy and use" (1 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, p. 457). 
The British Ambassador in a reply of 27 December 1934 stated that the British 
claim to sovereignty was not based on discovery alone, and continued: 

"The [Ross] Dependency was established and placed under New Zealand 
Adminstration by an Order in Council of 1923 in which the Dependency's 
geographical limits were precisely defined. Regulations have been made by 
the Governor General of New Zealand in respect to the Dependency and the 
British title has been kept up by the exercise in respect of the Dependency of 
administrative and governmental powers, e.g. as regards the issue of whaling 
licences and the appointment of a special officer to act as magistrate for the 
Dependency" [ibid., p. 458]. 

Replying by a note of 7 February 1935, the United States again reserved the 
rights which it or its citizens might have [ibid., p. 458]. 



6 These Letters Patent were published in the Falkland Islands Gazette of 
2 July 1917. 



235 



Order in Council, 30 July 1923 

(Statutory Rules and Orders, 1923, p. 712.) 

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 30th day of July, 1923. 

Present, 

The King's Most Excellent Majesty. 
Lord President. Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare. 

Lord Chamberlain. Major George Tryon. 

Whereas by the British Settlements Act, 1887, it is, amongst 
other things, enacted that it shall be lawful for His Majesty in 
Council from time to time to establish all such laws and institu- 
tions and constitute such courts and officers as may appear to 
His Majesty in Council to be necessary for the peace, order 
and good government of His Majesty's subjects and others 
within any British settlement: 

And whereas the coasts of the Ross Sea, with the islands and 
territories adjacent thereto, between the 160th degree of East 
Longitude and the 150th degree of West Longitude, which are 
situated south of the 60th degree of South Latitude, are a British 
settlement within the meaning of the said Act: 

And whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for 
the government thereof: 

Now, therefore, His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the 
powers by the said Act, or otherwise, in His Majesty vested, 
is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, 
and it is hereby ordered, as follows: — 

I. From and after the publication of this Order in the 
Government Gazette of the Dominion of New Zealand 6 that 
part of His Majesty's Dominions in the Antartic Seas, which 
comprises all the islands and territories between the 160th degree 
of East Longitude and the 150th degree of West Longitude 
which are situated south of the 60th degree of South Latitude 
shall be named the Ross Dependency. 

II. From and after such publication as aforesaid the Gover- 
nor-General and Commanders-in-Chief of the Dominion of New 
Zealand for the time being (hereinafter called the Governor) 
shall be the Governor of the Ross Dependency; and all the 
powers and authorities which by this Order are given and 
granted to the Governor for the time being of the Ross Depen- 
dency are hereby vested in him. 



6 This Order in Council was published in the New Zealand Gazette of 16 
August 1923. 



236 

III. In the event of the death or incapacity of the said 
Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Dominion of 
New Zealand or in the event of his absence from the said 
Dominion, the Officer for the time being administering the 
government of the Dominion shall be Governor for the time 
being of the Ross Dependency. 

IV. The said Governor is further authorised and empowered 
to make all such Rules and Regulations as may lawfully be made 
by His Majesty's authority for the peace, order and good 
government of the said Dependency, subject, nevertheless, to 
any instructions which he may from time to time receive from 
His Majesty or through a Secretary of State. 

V. The Governor is authorised to make and execute, on His 
Majesty's behalf, grants and dispositions of any Lands which 
may lawfully be granted or disposed of by His Majesty within 
the said Dependency, in conformity with such Rules and Regula- 
tions as may from time to time be in force in the Dependency. 

M. P. A. Hankey. 

7. Great Britain: Australian Antarctic Territory 

Order in Council, 7 February 1933 

(Statutory Rules and Orders, 1933, p. 2089.) 

At the Court at Sandringham, the 7th day of February, 1933. 

Present, 

The King's Most Excellent Majesty. 
Lord President. Mr. Chancellor of the 

Earl Stanhope. Duchy of Lancaster. 

Whereas that part of the territory in the Antartic Seas which 
comprises all the islands and territories other than Adelie Land 
situated south of the 60th degree of South Latitude and lying 
between the 160th degree of East Longitude and the 45th degree 
of East Longitude is territory over which His Majesty has 
sovereign rights: 

And whereas by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 
Act, it is provided that the Parliament of the Commonwealth of 
Australia may make laws for the government of any territory 
placed by the King under the authority of and accepted by the 
Commonwealth: 

And whereas it is expedient that the said territory in the 
Antarctic Seas should be placed under the authority of the 
Commonwealth of Australia: 



237 



Now, therefore, His Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the 
power in that behalf in His Majesty vested, is pleased, by and 
with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby 
ordered, as follows: — :m\ 

1. That part of His Majesty's dominions in the Antartic 
Seas which comprises all the islands and territories other than 
Adelie Land which are situated south of the 60th degree of South 
Latitude and lying between the 160th degree of East Longitude 
and the 45th degree of East Longitude is hereby placed under 
the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia. 

2. This Order shall come into operation on such date, after 
legislation shall have been passed by the Parliament of the 
Commonwealth of Australia providing for the acceptance of the 
said territory and the government thereof, as may be fixed by 
Proclamation by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth 
of Australia. 7 

M. P. A. Han key. 

8, Great Britain : Other Antarctic Claims 8 

Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial 
Conference, 1926 (excerpt) 

(Summary of Proceedings, Cmd. 2768, p. 33.) nmi 

XI. BRITISH POLICY IN THE ANTARCTIC 

The question of Antarctic exploration was discussed between 
representatives of the Governments interested. There are 
certain areas in these regions to which a British title already 
exists by virtue of discovery. These areas include: 

(i) The outlying part of Coats Land, viz., the portion not 
comprised within the Falkland Islands Dependencies. 

(ii) Enderby Land. 

(iii) Kemp Land. 

(iv) Queen Mary Land. 

{v) The area which lies to the west of Adelie Land and which 
on its discovery by the Australian Antarctic Expedition in 1912 
was denominated Wilkes Land. 



7 The Australian Parliament on 13 June 1933 passed an act providing for the 
acceptance of the territory [Australia, Commonwealth Acts (1933), p. 12], and 
the Order in Council was brought into force on 24 August 1936 by a Proclama- 
tion of the Governor-General of that date [Australia, Commonwealth Statutory 
Rules (1936), p. 599]. 

8 Of the areas herein claimed, only the outlying parts of Coats Land is not 
included in the scope of the letters patent and orders in council herein repro- 
duced. 



238 

(vi) King George V Land. 

(vii) Oates Land. 

The representatives of the Governments concerned studied 
the information available concerning these areas with special 
reference to their possible utilisation for further developing 
exploration and scientific research in the Antarctic regions. 

9. Norway: Bouvet Island 

Note. In 1911 Captain Roald Amundsen, the first explorer to reach the 
South Pole purported to take possession of the area in the name of the King 
of Norway, but this claim has not been followed by any official action on the 
part of the Norwegian Government. 

The first official Norwegian assertion of sovereignty with respect to lands 
in the far South was a royal decree of 23 January 1928 concerning Bouvet 
Island, (3°24 E. long., 54°26 S. lat.), sanctioning a proposal by the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs of the same date which requested 

"1. That Your Majesty will confirm and approve that Bouvet Island in the 
Island in the Southern Atlantic Ocean has been taken into formal possession 
in Your Majesty's name and that the Island is thus laid under Norwegian 
Sovereignty. 

"2 That the Ministry of Justice be authorized to issue regulations regarding 
the police authority on the Island" (Norway Collection of Laws & c, 1926-1930, 
p. 343). 

The British Government when informed of this decree at first took the posi- 
tion that a valid British title to Bouvet Island existed as the result of a landing 
and taking of possession in 1825 by the captain of a British sealer, but finally 
waived its claim in favor of Norway (1 Hackworth, Digest of International 
Law, pp. 469-470). 

By a note of 12 December 1928 the Norwegian Minister in Washington in- 
formed the United States Secretary of State that Bouvet Island had been placed 
under Norwegian sovereignty. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the 
Navy, when consulted by the Secretary of State, said they knew of no American 
interest that would be jeopardized by a recognition of Norway's action, and 
consequently the Secretary of State acknowledged receipt of the Norwegian 
note without making any reservation of the rights of the United States (Foreign 
Relations of the United States, 1929, III, pp. 716-718). 

Law Concerning Bouvet Island, 27 February 1930 

(Translation from Norway, Collection of Laws & c, 1926-30, p. 685.) 
[Translation] 

§ 1. The Bouvet Island is placed under Norwegian 
Sovereignty. 

§ 2. Norwegian Common Law and Penal Law as well as 
the Norwegian legislation concerning judicial proceedings apply 
to Bouvet Island. The King decides to what extent other 
laws shall be applied. The King may amend such laws as well 
as the legislation concerning judicial proceedings, when the 
local conditions demand amendments. 



239 

The regulations in Law regarding Svalbard (Spitsbergen) of 
July 7, 1925, §4 are applied correspondingly. 9 

§3. All land which is not sold to private persons belongs 
to the Crown. 

A property right in land belonging to the Crown or usufructs 
on such land may not be gained by prescription. 

When the Crown holds special rights on land which has been 
sold, these rights may not cease by prescription. 

§ 4. The present law comes into force at once. 

10. Norway: Peter I Island 

Royal Proclamation, 1 May 1931 

(Norsk Lovtidende, No. 15, 4 May 1931; translation from 134 British 
and Foreign State Papers, p. 1010.) 
[Translation] 

We, Haakon, King of Norway, make known: 
Peter I Island is placed under Norwegian sovereignty. 

Done at the Castle, Oslo, the 1st May, 1931. 
Under our hand and the Seal of the Kingdom. 

(L. S.) Haakon. 

JOH. LUDW. MOWINCKEL. B. RoLSTED. 

11. Norway: Norwegian Antarctic Territory 

Note. When informed of the following royal proclamation of 14 January 
1939, the United States Government reserved all rights which it or its citizens 
may have in the area. (1 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, p. 460.) 
Norway is the only State making official territorial claims in Antarctica which 
apparently rejects the sector principle, ibid., p. 463. 

a. Recommendation of the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs, 14 January 1939 

(Translation from 34 American Journal of International Law, 
Supplement (1940), pp. 83-85.) 

By Order in Council of the 23rd January, 1928, Bouvet 
Island in the Antarctic Ocean was brought under Norwegian 
sovereignty, and by Order in Council of the 1st May, 1931, the 
same thing was done with Peter I Island in the same ocean. 

Bouvet Island lies in 3°24' E. Long, and 54°26 / S. Lat., i.e., 
in that part of the Antarctic region often called the Atlantic 

9 This section gives the King power to establish general regulations with re- 
spect to such matters as public order, expulsion, safety of navigation and air 
traffic, working of mines, and hunting and fishing (Norway, Collection of 
Laws &c, 1921-1925, p. 837). [Ed.] 



240 

Sector. Peter I Island is situated 90°35' W. Long, and 68°50' 
S. Lat., i.e., in the Pacific Sector of the Antarctic region. 

Our object in bringing these islands in the Southern Ocean 
under Norwegian sovereignty was to give the Norwegian whal- 
ing industry in that region points of support and to guard it 
against possible encroachment on the part of foreign Powers. 

Since that time there have been discussions between the 
government authorities and the Norwegian interested parties 
as to whether it would not be right and useful, to bring a part 
of the Antarctic mainland under Norwegian sovereignty. 

Of this mainland with adjacent sea and islands, Great Britain 
brought under her dominion in ,1908 the area that has been 
named the Falkland Island Dependencies. The. region Ross 
Dependencies was brought underrNew Zealand in 1923; and the 
largest of all the Antarctic areas, from 160° to 45° E. Long., 
was brought under Australia in 1933.. In this latter area, how- 
ever, France had previously taken possession of a small area 
with a few islands, viz., Adelie Land around 140° E. Long. 

Bouvet Island lies in the ocean between the British and the 
Australian sectors. The land filling this intervening area is 
what has often been called the Atlantic Sector, and here no 
state has yet claimed sovereignty. 

The mainland in this region long remained unknown and un- 
explored. We know that certain discovery expeditions long 
ago penetrated the seas adjacent to this mainland, e.g., a Rus- 
sian expedition in 1820 and two English expeditions in 1831 and 
1843. But none of these expeditions got so far, in, as to sight 
land and still less to put people ashore. . . 'ii/rsrvT?* 

It was not until 1929 that exploring expeditions reached the 
mainland in this part of the Antarctic, and these expeditions 
were Norwegian. In the summer of 1929-1930 the whaler 
Lars Christensen sent out an expedition under the command of 
Captain Riiser-Larsen, accompanied by Captain Lutzow-Holm, 
who did exploration work and took, cartophotographs -from the 
air along great areas of the country, including the: region that 
was subsequently given the name- of Rronprincesse. Marthas 
Land. On a second expedition in* 1930-1931 fitted out.by Lars 
Christensen a further large area was discovered and -explored 
by. airplane; that land was named .Princesse Ragnhilds. Land. 
It was to this land that Captain Riiser-Larsen and others came 
on an expedition they made with' the support of the Norwegian 
Government in 1932-1933, and tfere, as well as at other points 
within the sector here in question, Norwegian whalers were 



241 

closeito the coast on many occasions during those years. Fi- 
nally, in the summer of 1936-1937 Lars Christensen- despatched 
still another expedition to the Antarctic, and on that occasion 
Lieutenant Wideroe piloted a plane over extensive areas, so that 
a great, deal of new land : ^as discovered and mapped both with- 
out and within the territory ..which the former expeditions had 
visited, a territory then: explored between Dronning. Mauds 
Land. and Princesse Ragnhilds Land was named Prins Haralds 
Land.. On all these, expeditions practically the whole of the 
mainland within the Atlantic Sector bordering the sea was.ex- 
plored and mapped so well that we. may say that not many 
parts of the Antarctic continent are better known. 

It. shquld be mentioned that Norwegian explorers,, Roald 
Amundsen and others, have explored also other parts of the 
Antarctic, and in particular they have in recent years explored 
and mapped much of the land which was brought under Au- 
stralia in 1933. There should, however, not be any question of 
Norway laying claim to any land that has previously been talterl 
possession of by another state. ' This accords with the promise 
given by the Norwegian Government to Great Britain in 1929 
to the effect that it would not raise any claim in respect of land 
within the region which had then been brought under the domin- 
ion of the British Empire. 

But Norway considers that it may with full right claim 
dominion over that land which until now has lain unclaimed 
ajid which none but Norwegians have explored and mapped. ..., 

It, is this very area which in recent years has been of capital 
importance to Norwegian whaling. This fishery is now pros- 
ecuted on the high seas, but as the summer advances the catches 
are made closer and closer to land. The mainland coast in 
these parts runs approximately along the 70th degree of latitude 
and in the beginning of the summer — in December — the edge 
of ice is usually along the 60th degree. It is not until February 
that- the factory boats draw near to shore. 
;rfAqtiestion that may have an important bearing on the free- 
dom to be extended to whaling expeditions is the determination 
of the limit of territorial waters. But on this question there"? 
still exists a good deal of uncertainty. It has been maintained 5 
that the ice-limit in the Antarctic must be regarded as; the limit 
of the continent, and Great Britain and the two Britain domin- 
ions that have taken land here have in the main drawn the limit 
along the 60th degree of latitude. What this implies in respect 
of the right to sovereignty does not appear to be quite clear; 



242 



one thing is, however, certain, namely, that Norwegian whalers 
operating within this limit were for a number of years required 
to pay a licence. 

For the very reason that such questions of territorial limits 
remain undecided, it is most desirable for the Norwegian whaling 
industry in those seas that Norway should hold dominion over 
a wide tract of the mainland with adjacent waters. Norway 
for her part will not claim any right to exclude other nations 
from the waters over which she might thus have dominion, or 
prevent them in any way from carrying whaling operations 
there. But Norwegian whalers should be ensured against the 
possibility of other nations excluding them from these waters 
or committing any action that might involve their industry in 
injury or loss. 

The Norwegian Government has for a long time been alive 
to this requirement, and ever since the question arose it has 
been giving its attention to the preparation of an arrangement 
that would meet natural Norwegian demands. The govern- 
ment finds that the time has now come to take the final decision. 

As mentioned above, Norway's right to bring the said un- 
claimed land under her dominion is founded on the geographical 
exploration work done by Norwegians in this region, in which 
work they have been alone. 

The practical considerations which should lead to Norway's 
making use of the right it must thus be said to have won, arise 
from the Norwegian whaling operations in the Southern Ocean, 
and more particularly in the seas adjacent to the territory here 
in question. 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs therefore submits the fol- 
lowing: 

That Your Majesty be pleased to assent and subscribe to a 
presented draft of an Order in Council to the effect that such 
part of the coast of the Antarctic Continent as extends from the 
limits of the Falkland Islands Dependencies in the west (the 
boundary of Coats Land) to the limits of the Australian An- 
tarctic Dependency in the east (45° E. long.) with the territory 
lying within this coast and the adjacent seas, be brought under 
Norwegian sovereignty: 

And that the Ministry of Justice be empowered to draw up 
regulations for the exercise of police authority within this region. 



243 



b. Royal Proclamation, 14 January 1939 

(Translation from 34 American Journal of International Law, 
Supplement, (1940), p. 83.) 
[Translation] 

We, Haakon, King of Norway, do hereby proclaim: 

That part of the mainland coast in the Antarctic extending 
from the limits of the Falkland Islands Dependencies in the 
west (the boundary of Coats Land) to the limits of the Austra- 
lian Anctarctic Dependency in the east (45° E. Long.) with the 
land lying within this coast and the environing sea, shall be 
brought under Norwegian sovereignty. 

Given at Oslo Palace on the 14th day of January, 1939. 

Under Our Hand and the Seal of the Realm. 

Haakon 

[L.S.] 

Johan Nygaardsvold B. Rolsted 

12. United States of America 

Note. The position consistently taken by the United States with respect 
to Antarctic claims was summed up in a statement by the Acting Secretary of 
State of 27 December 1946 (16 Department of State Bulletin, p. 30): 

"The United States Government has not recognized any claims of any other 
nations in the Antarctic and has reserved all rights which it may have in those 
areas. On the other hand, the United States has never formally asserted any 
claims, but claims have been asserted in its behalf by American citizens." 

The reason for the United States' position is given in a statement of policy 
made by the Department of State on 10 November 1939 in connection with 
the third Antarctic expedition of Admiral Byrd (New York Times, 11 November 
1939, p. 17). The statement quotes a note of Secretary of State Hughes to 
the Norwegian Minister of 2 April 1924, written in connection with a North 
Polar expedition of Captain Roald Amundsen, which reads in part as follows 
(Foreign Relations of the United States, 1924, II, p. 519): 

"In my opinion rights similar to those which in earlier centuries were based 
upon the acts of a discoverer, followed by occupation or settlement consum- 
mated at long and uncertain periods thereafter, are not capable of being ac- 
quired at the present time. Today, if an explorer is able to ascertain the 
existence of lands still unknown to civilization, his act of so-called discovery, 
coupled with a formal taking of possession, would have no significance, save 
as he might herald the advent of the settler; and where for climatic or other 
reasons actual settlement would be an impossibility, as in the case of the Polar 
regions, such conduct on his part would afford frail support for a reasonable 
claim of sovereignty. 

"I am therefore compelled to state, without adverting to other considerations; 
that this government cannot admit that such taking of possession as a discovery 
by Mr. Amundsen of areas explored by him could establish the basis of rights 
of sovereignty in the polar region." 

Disapproval of the sector principle has been expressed by official quarters in 



244 



the United States. In commenting in 1929 upon the proposal of a private 
citizen that the United States should suggest a partition of the Artie into 
national sectors of five contiguous countries, the Secretary of the Navy stated 
that such a course of action 

"(a) Is an effort arbitrarily to divide up a large part of the world's area 
amongst several countries; 

. ;■"(&) -'Contains" no justification for claiming sovereignty over large areas of 
the world's surface- ■ -r 

"(c) Violates the long recognized custom of establishing sovereignty over 
territory by right of discovery. . . ." (1 Hackworth, Digest of International 
Law, p. 464). 

The areas to which nationals of the United States have asserted unofficial 
claims on behalf of the United States are: (1) Marie Byrd Land, comprising 
all the area to the east of 150° west longitude discovered or mapped by Admiral 
Byrd during his first two Antarctic expeditions of 1928-1929 and 1933-1934. 
(2) James W. Ellsworth Land, comprising the section between 80° and 120° 
west longitude, flown over by Lincoln Ellsworth in 1936; and (3) an area com- 
prising about 80,000 square miles in the vicintiy of 22° S. latitude, 79° E. longi- 
tude,-^ the sector claimed by Great Britain as the Australian Antarctic Terri- 
tory, to which point Lincoln Ellsworth flew on 11 January 1939 and dropped 
a cylinder containing a written claim (1 Hackworth, op. cit., p. 454; V. Stefans- 
son, "Exploration and Discovery," Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook, 1940, 
pp. 271-272). 

By an act of 16 June 1936 Congress voted to award a gold medal to Lincoln 
Ellsworth "for claiming on behalf of the United States approximately three 
hundred and fifty thousand square miles of land in Antarctica between the 
eightieth and one hundred and twentieth meridans west of Greenwich, repre- 
senting the last unclaimed territory in the world" (49 Stat. 2324). 
In July 1939 President Roosevelt created the United States Antarctic Service, 
headed by an executive committee composed of representatives of the State, 
Treasury j and Navy Departments and Admiral Byrd, which was to organize, 
direct, and coordinate the conduct of an investigation and survey of the natural 
resources of the land and sea areas of the Antarctic regions (1 Department of 
State Bulletin, p. 57). Congress made appropriations for Antarctic explora- 
tions:in 1939, 1940, and 1941 (53 Stat. 986, 1321; 54 Stat. 643; 55 Stat. 360). 
By an act of 24 July 1946 (60 Stat. 655) Congress authorized the Secretary of 
the ; Navy to lend a naval vessel to the American Antarctic Association, Inc., 
for the purpose of carrying out an Antarctic expedition headed by Commander 
FinnRonne, U. S..N. R. 

.. -fa. A.u gust 1948 the Department of State made informal proposals to other 
Governments with respect .to the. Antarctic; the text of these proposals has 
not yet been made public, -but on 28 August 1948 the Department of State 
issued a press release concerning them. Press reports indicate that Chile t and 
the Argentine Republic replied that they thought no agreement could be 
reached; Norway expected some difficulty; and Great Britain welcomed the 
suggestion. London Times, 28 December 1948, p. 3. 

Department of State Press Release, 28 August 1948 

(19 Department of State Bulletin, p. 301.) 
The Department of State has approached the Governments 
of Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, 



245 

and the United Kingdom informally with a suggestion that a 
solution for the territorial problem of Antarctica be discussed. 
It is the viewpoint of the Department of State that the solution 
should be such as to promote scientific investigation and research 
in the area. The Department of State has suggested that this 
can perhaps be done most effectively and the problem of con- 
flicting claims at the same time solved through agreement upon 
some form of internationalization. The Department of State 
expects that the question is one which will require an extended 
exchange of views, consideration of suggestions, and probably 
reconciliation of varying viewpoints. Until such exchange of 
views and necessary further study is completed, it is not believed 
that any useful purpose could be accomplished by a conference 
on the subject, and no such conference is contemplated at 
present. 



VI. PROVISIONS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL 

LAW IN CONSTITUTIONS ADOPTED SINCE 1945 
1. Constitution of the Argentine Republic, 16 March 1949 

(Diario de Sesiones, 16 March 1949; translation from A. J. Peaslee, 
Constitutions of Nations.) 
[Translation] 

Article 19. The Federal Government is bound to con- 
solidate its relations of peace and commerce with foreign powers 
by means of treaties that are in conformity with the principles 
of public right laid down by this Constitution. 

Article 22. This Constitution, the laws of the Nation dic- 
tated by Congress in consequence thereof, and the treaties with 
foreign powers are the supreme law of the Nation; and the 
authorities of each province are obliged to conform thereto, 
notwithstanding any rule to the contrary which the provincial 
laws or constitutions may contain, with the exception, so far as 
the Province of Buenos Aires is concerned, of the treaties rati- 
fied following the Pact of November 11, 1859. 

Article 68. Congress shall have the power: . . . 

(12) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among 
the provinces; 

(19) To approve or reject treaties signed with other nations 
and agreements with the Vatican, and to arrange the exercise 
of the ecclesiastical patronage in the whole Nation; 

(21) To authorize the executive power to declare war or make 
peace; 

(22) To authorize reprisals and to make rules concerning 
captures; 

(23) To fix the strength of the armed forces in time of peace 
and of war, to provide regulations and rules for governing them, 
and to pass special legislation concerning expropriations and 
requisitions in time of war; 

(24) To allow the introduction of foreign troops into the 
territory of the Nation and to allow national troops to leave the 
country, except for reasons of international courtesy, in which 
case the authorization of the executive power shall be sufficient. 

Article 83. The President of the Nation has the following 
powers: 

(14) He concludes and signs treaties of peace, of trade, of 
navigation, of alliance, of boundaries and neutrality, 

246 



247 

agreements with the Pope, and other negotiations required 
for the maintenance of good relations with foreign nations, 
receives their ministers and admits their consuls. 

Article 95. The Supreme Court of Justice and the inferior 
courts of the Nation shall have jurisdiction of all cases turning 
upon points governed by the Constitution; by the laws of the 
Nation, with the reservations specified in paragraph (11) of 
Article 68; and by treaties with foreign nations; of all suits 
referring to ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, and foreign 
consuls; in cases of admiralty, maritime and aeronautical juris- 
diction; in suits, in which the Nation is a party; in cases arising 
in the federal capital and in places governed by the legislation 
of Congress; in suits between two or more provinces; between 
one province and the citizens of another province; and between 
the Nation or a province or its inhabitants and a foreign State. . . 

Article 96. The Supreme Court of Justice shall have origi- 
nal and exclusive jurisdiction in cases arising between a Nation 
or a province or its inhabitants and a foreign State; in cases 
concerning ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary or foreign 
consuls; and in cases between the Nation and one or more 
provinces or between the provinces. 

2. Constitution of the United States of Brazil, 
18 September 1946 

(Diario Oficial, 15 October 1946; translation from R. H. Fitzgibbon, 
The Constitutions of the Americas, pp. 60-106.) 
[Translation] 

Article 4. Brazil shall resort to war only in case of non- 
applicability or failure of resort to arbitration or pacific means 
of solution of the conflict, regulated by any international organ 
of security in which it may participate; and in no case shall it 
embark on a war of conquest, directly or indirectly by itself or 
in alliance with another State. 

Article 5. The Union shall have power: 

I. To maintain relations with foreign States and to negotiate 
treaties and conventions with them. 

II. To declare war and to make peace. 

V. To permit foreign forces to pass through national terri- 
tory, or, for reasons of war, to remain therein temporarily. 

Article 66. The national Congress shall have exclusive 
power: 

I. To give final decision respecting treaties and conventions 
negotiated with foreign States by the President of the Republic. 



248 

II. To authorize the President of the Republic to declare 
war and make peace. H 

III. To authorize the President of the Republic to permit 
foreign forces to pass through national territory, Or, by reason 
of war, to remain therein temporarily. - • 

Article 87. The President of the Republic shall have ex- 
clusive -power: . ... ...... . . . „ ._ v ,: 

: ;.jVJ.:.' To maintain relations with foreign States. 

-VII. To negotiate international treaties and conventions, 
subject to referendum of the national Congress. 

VIII. To declare war, after authorization by the national 
Congress, but without this authorization in the case of foreign 
aggression, when such occurs in the interval between legislative 
sessions. >: " ; 

IX. To make peace, with the authorization and subject to 
referendum of the national Congress. 

... X. To permit, upon authorization by the national Congress, 
but without this authorization in the interval between legislative 
sessions, foreign forces to pass through the territory of the 
country or, by reason of war, to remain therein temporarily. 

Article 101. The federal Supreme Tribunal shall have 
power: -i;* 

I. To prosecute and judge in first instance: .... 

(d) Litigation between foreign States and the Union, the 
States, the federal district, or the municipalities. 

(g) Extradition of criminals, requested by foreign States, and 
the confirmation of foreign sentences. 

II. To judge on ordinary appeal: . . . 

t (b) Cases decided by local judges, based on a treaty or con- 
tract of the Union with a foreign State, as well as those in which 
a foreign State and a person domiciled in the country may be 
parties. 

III. To judge on special appeal cases decided in sole or final 
instance by other tribunals or judges: 

(a) When the decision is contrary to a provision of this Con- 
stitution or the letter of a federal treaty or law. 

Article 102. With voluntary appeal to the federal Supreme 
Tribunal, its President shall have power to grant exequatur to 
letters rogatory from foreign tribunals. 



249 

3. Constitution of The Union of Burma, 24 September 1947 

(Text published by the Burmese Government, 1947.) 
CHAPTER XII 

International Relations 

211. The Union of Burma renounces war as an instrument 
of national policy, and accepts the generally recognized prin- 
ciples of international law as its rule of conduct in its relation 
with foreign States. 

212. The Union of Burma affirms its devotion to the ideal 
of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on 
international justice and morality. 

213. (1) Every international agreement to which the Union 
becomes a party shall be laid before the Parliament. 

(2) No international agreement requiring or likely to require 
legislation in order to give effect thereto shall be ratified except 
with the approval of the Parliament. 

(3) No international agreement involving a charge upon the 
revenues of the Union shall be ratified unless the terms of the 
agreement shall have been approved by the Chamber of 
Deputies. 

Explanation. — This section shall not apply to inter-govern- 
mental agreements or conventions of a technical or administra- 
tive character. 

214. No international agreement as such shall be part of 
the municipal law of the Union, save as may be determined by 
the Parliament. 

4. Constitution of the Dominican Republic, 10 January 1947 

(Gaceta Oficial, 19 January 1947, No. 6569; translation from 
R. H. Fitzgibbon, The Constitutions of the Americas, pp. 299-320.) 

[Translation] 

Article 33. The powers of the Congress are: . . . 

IS. To approve or disapprove international treaties and con- 
ventions that the Executive negotiates. 

Article 49. The President of the Republic is the chief of 
the public administration and the supreme commander of all 
the armed forces of the Republic. 

It is within the competence of the President of the Republic: . . . 

6. To receive foreign chiefs of State and their representatives. 

7. To preside over all the official acts of the Nation, to 
direct diplomatic negotiations, and to negotiate treaties with 
foreign Nations, having to submit them to the approval of the 

855422—50 17 



250 



Congress, without which they have no validity and do not 
obligate the Republic. 

14. To declare war, on a previous decree of the Congress, 
and to settle the peace, when it may be necessary, with the 
approval of the Congress. 

15. In case of international war, he may arrest or expel from 
national territory individuals of the Nation with which the war 
is being waged, and, in general, aliens whose activities, in the 
judgment of the Executive, have been or may be prejudicial to 
the national interest. 

5. Political Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, 
31 December 1946 

{Registro Oficial, 31 December 1946; translation based on R. H. Fitzgibbon, 
The Contitutions of the Americas, pp. 323-365.) 
[Translation] 

Article 4. The national territory includes, in addition to 
the continental Provinces situated in South America, the ad- 
jacent islands, the Archipelago of Colon or of the Galapagos, the 
territorial sea, the subsoil, and their respective air spaces. 

The national territory is inalienable, and no treaty may be 
concluded which affects its integrity or impairs national sover- 
eignty, without prejudice to the duties imposed by the inter- 
national juridical community. 

Article 5. The Republic of Ecuador respects the norms of 
international law, and proclaims the principle of cooperation and 
good neighborliness among States, and the solution by juridical 
means of international controversies. 

Article 6. Ecuador will collaborate within the world com- 
munity of nations for the defense of its common territorial, 
economic, and cultural interests, especially with the Ibero- 
American States, with which it is united by ties of solidarity and 
interdependence arising out of identity of origin and culture. 
It may, consequently, form with one or more of the said States 
associations which have as their object the defense of such 
interests. 

Article 53. The Congress, divided into Chambers, has 
power: . . . 

15th. To approve or disapprove of public treaties or other 
conventions, which cannot be ratified and whose ratifications 
cannot be exchanged without this approval. 

17th. To permit or deny the transit of foreign troops through 
the territory of the Republic, and the transit or stopping of 



251 



surface or submarine warships in territorial waters for a greater 
time than that allowed by international practices* There is 
equal authority governing the transit, arrival, and stay of mili- 
tary airplanes. These dispositions do not apply to cases of 
forced arrival or landing. 

19th. To open and close ports. 

Article 55. The Full Congress has power: . . . 

12th. To declare war and to make peace, in view of the in- 
formation submitted by the President of the Republic. 

Article 71. Treaties and conventions will be considered by 
the Full Congress in a single discussion, without prejudice to 
the provision of the 15th clause of Article 53, and the pertinent 
decree which will be issued will not be subject to the general 
regulation relative to the term within which decrees must be 
issued, for their sanction. 10 In consequence the Executive may 
delay it, if he considers it appropriate, giving an account of his 
decision to the Congress, in public or secret as he judges best. 

Article 92. The powers and duties of the President of the 
Republic are: . . . 

7th. To direct the international relations and diplomatic 
negotiations of the Republic, to conclude treaties and ratify 
them with the previous approval of the Congress, and to ex- 
change ratifications. 

Article 99. The President of the Republic or the one who 
exercises the office . . . is . . . especially responsible for . . . 
provoking an unjust war. . . . 

Article 146. The powers and duties of the Council of 
State are: . . . 

14th. To permit or deny the transit of foreign troops through 
the territory of the Republic, and the transit or stopping of 
surface or submarine warships in territorial waters for a greater 
time than that allowed by international practices. There is 
equal authority governing the transit, arrival, and stay of 
military airplanes. The dispositions of this section do not 
apply to cases of forced arrival or landing. 

Article 189. The Constitution is the supreme juridical 
norm of the Republic. Therefore any laws, decrees, regula- 
tions, ordinances, provisions, pacts, or public treaties which 
in any way are in contradiction to it or depart from its text are 
without effect. 



10 Article 75 of the Constitution provides that laws and decrees will be 
promulgated by the Executive within the 15 days following his approval.- — [Ed.] 



252 



Only the Congress has the power to interpret the Constitution 
in a generally binding manner, and to resolve doubts which 
arise concerning the meaning of one or more of its terms. 

Likewise only the Congress has the function of declaring 
whether a law or legislative decree is or is not unconstitutional. 

6. Constitution of the French Republic, 27 October 1946 

{Journal Official, 28 October 1946.) 
[Translation] 

Preamble. . . . Every man persecuted by reason of his 
action in behalf of liberty has the right to asylum in the terri- 
tories of the Republic. . . . 

The French Republic, faithful to its traditions, conforms to 
the rules of public international law. It will undertake no war 
with a view to conquest and will never use its forces against the 
liberty of any people. 

On condition of reciprocity, France consents to limitations 
of sovereignty which are necessary for the organization and 
defence of peace. . . . 

Article 26. Diplomatic treaties regularly ratified and pub- 
lished have the force of law even should they be contrary to 
internal French laws, and to ensure their application there 
is no need of other legislative dispositions than those which 
would have been necessary to ensure their ratification. 

Article 27. Treaties relating to international organization, 
treaties of peace, treaties which engage the finances of the 
State, those which are relative to the status of persons and to 
the property rights of French citizens abroad, those which 
modify French internal laws, and also those which bring about 
a cession, exchange or addition of territory, are not definitive 
until after they have been ratified by virtue of a law. 

No cession, exchange, or addition of territory is valid without 
the consent of the populations concerned. 

Article 28. As diplomatic treaties regularly ratified and 
published have an authority superior to that of internal laws, 
their dispositions cannot be abrogated, modified, or suspended 
otherwise than after a regular denunciation of which notice 
has been given through diplomatic channels. When treaties 
covered by Article 27 are concerned, the denunciation must be 
authorized by the National Assembly, except in the case of 
treaties of commerce. 

Article 31. The President is kept informed of international 
negotiations. He signs and ratifies treaties. 



253 

The President of the Republic accredits ambassadors and 
envoys extraordinary to foreign powers; foreign ambassadors 
and envoys are accredited to him. 

7. German Constitutions 

a. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of 
Germany, 20 May 1949 

(United States Department of State Publication 3526.) 
[Translation] 

Article 16. (1) No one may be deprived of his German 
citizenship. The loss of citizenship may occur only on the basis 
of a law and, against the will of the person concerned, only if 
the person concerned is not rendered stateless thereby. 

(2) No German may be extradited to a foreign country. 
The politically persecuted shall enjoy the right of asylum. 

Article 24. (1) The Federation may, by legislation, trans- 
fer sovereign powers to international institutions. 

(2) In order to preserve peace, the Federation may join a 
system of mutual collective security; in doing so it will consent 
to those limitations of its sovereign powers which will bring 
about and secure a peaceful and lasting order in Europe and 
among the nations of the world. 

(3) For the settlement of international disputes, the Federa- 
tion will join a general, comprehensive, obligatory system of 
international arbitration. 

Article 25. The general rules of international law shall 
form part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the 
laws and create rights and duties directly for the inhabitants of 
the federal territory. 

Article 26. (1) Activities tending to disturb or under- 
taken with the intention of disturbing the peaceful relations 
between nations, and especially preparing for aggressive war, 
shall be unconstitutional. They shall be made subject to 
punishment. 

(2) Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, 
transported or marketed only with the permission of the 
Federal Government. Details shall be regulated by a federal 
law. 

Article 32. (1) The maintenance of relations with foreign 
states shall be the affair of the Federation. 

(2) Before the conclusion of a treaty affecting the special 



254 

conditions of a Land, the Land must be consulted sufficiently 
early. 

(3) Insofar as the Laender are competent to legislate, they 
may, with the approval of the Federal Government, conclude 
treaties with foreign states. 

Article 59. (1) The Federal President shall represent the 
Federation in matters concerning international law. He shall 
conclude treaties with foreign states on behalf of the Federation. 
He shall accredit and receive the envoys. 

(2) Treaties which regulate the political relations of the 
Federation or refer to matters of federal legislation shall require, 
in the form of a federal law, the approval or the praticipation 
of the corporations competent at the time for federal legislation. 
For administrative agreements the provisions concerning the 
federal administraton shall apply appropriately. 

Article 73. The Federation shall have exclusive legislation 
on: 

1. Foreign affairs; 

2. Citizenship of the Federation; 

3. Freedom of movement, passports, immigration, emi- 
gration and extradition; 

5. The unity of customs and commercial territory, com- 
mercial and navigation agreements, the freedom of 
traffic in goods and the traffic in goods and payments 
with foreign conutries, including customs and frontier 
protection. 

Article 100. (2) If in litigation it is doubtful whether a 
rule of international law forms part of federal law and whether 
it creates direct rights and duties for the individual (Article 25), 
the court shall obtain the decision of the Federal Constitutional 
Court. 

b. Constitution of the Republic of Bavaria, 
1 December 1946 

(Office of Military Government for Germany (U. S.), Constitutions of 
Bavaria, Hesse, and Wurttemberg-Baden (1947), pp. 33-55.) 

[Translation] 

Article 84. The generally recognized principles of inter- 
national law as valid as part of domestic law. 



255 

c. Constitution of the State of Hesse, 1 December 1946 

(Office of Military Government for Germany (U. S.), Constitutions of 
Bavaria, Hesse, and Wiirttemberg-Baden (1947), pp. 33-55.) 

[Translation] 

Article 67. The rules of international law are valid as part 
of the law of the State without requiring express incorporation 
in the law of the State. No law is valid which conflicts with 
such rules or with a State treaty. 

d. Constitution for Wurttemberg-Baden, 
24 November 1946 

(Office of Military Government for Germany (U. S.), Constitutions of 
Bavaria, Hesse, and Wiirttemberg-Baden (1947), pp. 33-55.) 

[Translation] 

Article 46. The generally recognized rules of international 
law are binding integral parts of the law of the State. They are 
binding for the State and for the individual citizen. 

The rights granted to foreigners by international law may be 
claimed by them, even though they are not set forth in State 
legislation. 

8. Constitution of the Republic of Haiti, 23 December 1946 

(Le Moniteur, 23 December 1946; translation based on R. H. Fitzgibbon, 
The Constitutions of the Americas, pp. 444-466.) 

[Translation] 

Article 1. The Republic of Haiti is one, indivisible, free, 
sovereign, independent, democratic, and social. 

Port-au-Prince is its capital and the seat of its government. 

All islands lying within the limits consecrated by international 
law, of which the principal ones are La Tortue, La Gonave, 
lTle-a-Vache, les Cayemittes, la Navase, and la Grande Caye, 
from an integral part of the territory of the Republic, which 
territory is inviolable and cannot be alienated by any treaty 
or convention. 

Article 10. The right of [owning] real property is granted 
to aliens resident in Haiti and to foreign corporations for their 
dwelling needs. 

However, an alien resident in Haiti may not, in any case, 
become owner of more than one place of habitation in a locality. 
He may not, in any case, engage in the business of renting real 
property. 

The right of [owning] real property is likewise granted to 



256 



aliens resident in Haiti and to foreign corporations for the needs 
of their agricultural, commercial, industrial, or teaching enter- 
prises, within the limits and conditions to be determined by the 
law. 

The right will come to an end within a period of two years 
after the alien has ceased to reside in the country or the cor- 
porations have ceased operations. And the State will become 
owner in full right, in conformity with the law that determines 
the extent of the right of property and the regulations to be 
followed for the transmission and liquidation of properties. 

Any citizen is entitled, with benefit to himself of certain ad- 
vantages determined by law, to denounce violations of this 
present provision. 

Article 31. Extradition will not be granted or requested 
in political matters. 

Article 47. The powers of the National Assembly are: . . . 

2nd. To declare war, upon a report by the Executive. 

3rd. To approve or reject treaties of peace and other inter- 
national treaties and conventions. 

Article 84. The President of the Republic ... is charged 
with supervising the execution of the treaties of the Republic. 

He makes all international treaties or conventions, subject 
to the approval of the National Assembly, to the ratification 
of which he likewise submits all executive agreements. 

9. Constitution of the Italian Republic, 1 January 1948 

{Gazzetta Offiziale, 27 December 1947.) 
[Translation] 

Article 10. The Italian juridical order conforms to the 
generally recognized forms of international law. 

The juridical condition of aliens is regulated by the law in 
conformity with international norms and treaties. 

An alien whose effective exercise of the democratic liberties 
guaranteed by the Italian Constitution is hindered in his own 
country has a right of asylum in the territory of the Republic, 
under conditions established by law. 

Extradition of aliens for political offenses is not allowed. 

Article 11. Italy repudiates war as an instrument of 
offence against the liberty of other peoples and as a means of 
solution of international controversies; Italy consents, on con- 
dition of parity with other States, to limitations of sovereignty 
necessary to an order which will assure peace and justice among 



257 



Nations; and Italy promotes and favors international organiza- 
tions directed to this end. 

Article 16. ... Every citizen is free to leave and re-enter 
the territory of the Republic, subject only to legal obligations. 

Article 26. The extradition of a citizen can be consented 
to only where it is expressly provided for by international con- 
ventions. 

It cannot be allowed in any case for political offenses. 

Article 35. The Republic . . . promotes and favors inter- 
national agreements and organizations intended to strengthen 
and regulate the rights of labor. 

It recognizes freedom of emigration, except where contrary to 
obligations established by law in the general interest, and pro- 
tects Italian labor abroad. 

Article 75. . . . The referendum is not allowed for laws . . . 
granting authoriaztion to ratify international treaties. 

Article 80. The Chambers [Chamber of Deputies and Sen- 
ate] authorize by laws the ratification of international treaties 
which are of a political nature, or provide for arbitrations or 
judicial settlements, or bring about changes of territory or bur- 
dens on the finances or modifications of laws. 

Article 87. The President of the Republic is the head of 
the State and represents the national unity. . . . 

He accredits and receives diplomatic representatives and rati- 
fies international treaties, with previous authorization of the 
Chambers when necessary. 

10. Constitution of Japan, 3 November 1946 

(United States Department of State Publication 2836.) 
[Translation] 

We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are 
deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relation- 
ship, and we have determined to preserve our security and ex- 
istence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving 
peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in 
an international society striving for the preservation of peace, 
and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and 
intolerance for all time from the earth. We recognize that all 
peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from 
fear and want. 

We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but 
that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience 
to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain 



258 

their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship 
with other nations. 

We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accom- 
plish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources. 

Article 7. The Emperor, with the advice and approval of 
the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state 
on behalf of the people: 

Promulgation of amendments of the constitution, laws, cabi- 
net orders and treaties. . . . 
Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace 
based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce 
war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of 
force as means of settling international disputes. 

Article 73. The Cabinet, in addition to other general ad- 
ministrative functions, shall perform the following functions: 
Administer the law faithfully; conduct affairs of state. 
Manage foreign affairs. 

Conclude treaties. However, it shall obtain prior or, de- 
pending on circumstances, subsequent approval of the 
Diet. . . . 
Article 98. This Constitution shall be the supreme law of 
the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act 
of government, or part thereof, contrary to the provisions 
hereof, shall have legal force or validity. 

The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of 
nations shall be faithfully observed. 

11. Constitution of Nicaragua, 22 January 1948 

(Constitution Politico, y Leyes Constitutivas de Nicaragua, 1948 
[Translation] 

Article 1. Nicaragua is a unitary, free, sovereign and in- 
dependent State. 

Article 2. The basis of the national territory is the uti 
possidetis juris of 1821 . The territory between the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans and the Republics of Honduras and Costa Rica 
is included, and this territory embraces also the adjacent islands, 
the territorial sea, the continental shelves, and the air space and 
stratospheric space. Boundaries which are not yet determined 
shall be fixed by treaties and the law. 

Article 3 . The territory and the sovereignty are indivisible 
and inalienable. Nonetheless treaties may be concluded which 
tend toward union with one or more republics of Central 



259 



America, or which have as their object the construction, guaran- 
tee, operation, and defense of an interoceanic canal through the 
national territory, or which have as their aim the temporary 
use by an American power of the soil, air, stratosphere, or ter- 
ritorial waters exclusively for continental defense. 

Article 7. Nicaragua proscribes aggressive war and inter- 
vention in the internal affairs of other States. It espouses the 
principles contained in the Atlantic Charter; it recognizes the 
right of self-determination of peoples and recognizes arbitration 
as a means of resolving international conflicts. 

Article 22. Foreigners enjoy in Nicaragua all civil rights 
and guarantees granted to Nicaraguans, without other limita- 
tions than those established by laws. 

They are obliged to respect the authorities, to obey the laws, 
and to pay all ordinary and extraordinary contributions to 
which Nicaraguans are subject. 

Article 23. Foreigners must not in any way interfere in the 
political activities of the country. 

For contravention, though they remain without prejudice 
subject to the responsibilities which would ordinarily arise, they 
may be expelled without previous adjudication by the President 
of the Republic in Council of Ministers, except where the 
foreigner has a Nicaraguan wife, or legitimate or illegitimate 
children by a Nicaraguan mother which have been recognized 
previous to the act which is to be punished. 

Article 24. Foreigners cannot make claims upon nor de- 
mand any indemnification from the State except in the cases 
and in the form in which Nicaraguans could do so; but neither 
foreigners nor Nicaraguans can claim indemnification from the 
State when they are damaged in person or property by acts 
which were not done by legitimate authorities in their public 
character. 

Article 25. Foreigners cannot have recourse to diplomatic 
means except in cases of denial of justice. The fact that a 
judgment which has been rendered is unfavorable to the claim- 
ant does not constitute a denial of justice. Those who contra- 
vene this provision lose the right to live in the country. 

Article 27. Extradition of foreigners for political crimes or 
common crimes connected with political ones cannot be allowed. 
The definition of such crimes is in accordance with treaties or is 
prescribed by the Supreme Court of Justice if there are no 
treaties. 

Article 64. There shall be no confiscation of property except 



260 

against nationals of an enemy country, and then of not more 
than seventy-five per cent of their respective net capital when 
the foreigners are married to Nicaraguan wives or have Nicara- 
guan children. The twenty-five per cent shall be for the benefit 
of such Nicaraguan wife and children. 

The proceeds of the confiscated property must serve in the 
first place to indemnify Nicaraguans for confiscations or exac- 
tions they have suffered at the hands of the enemy country. . . . 

Article 100. The State does not recognize the legal exist- 
tence of political parties having an international organization, 
nor that of communist and fascist parties with similar tendencies 
even when they adopt other designations. Individuals belong- 
ing to them cannot perform any public charge and shall be sub- 
ject to the sanction established by law. The sole exception is 
international parties which are neither communist nor totali- 
tarian and which tend toward the union of Central America. 

Article 133. The Legislative Power, acting in separate 
Chambers, shall have power: . . . 

(7) To approve or disapprove treaties concluded with foreign 
nations. The treaties referred to in Article 3 shall require a 
two-thirds vote for their approval. 

(13) To declare war or authorize the Executive to such end. 

Article 182. The President of the Republic as the supreme 
administrative authority shall have power: 

(1) To defend the independence and the honor of the Nation 
and the integrity of its territory. 

(5) To direct foreign relations, to name the Diplomatic Agents 
and Consuls of the Republic, and to receive the Diplomatic 
Agents and admit the Consuls of other nations. 

(6) To declare war with the authorization of Congress or to 
make war without such authorization when it is urgent to repel 
a foreign aggression. 

(7) To conclude treaties and all other diplomatic negotiations, 
and to ratify them with the previous approval of the Legislative 
Power. 

(8) To permit or deny the transit of foreign troops through 
the territory of the Republic. 

12. Constitution of the Republic of Panama, 1 March 1946 

{Constitution de la Republica de Panama, Edition Oficial; translation based on 

R. H.Fitzgibbon, The Constitutions of the America, pp. 605-651.) 
[Translation] 

Article 3. The Republic of Panama is constituted on the 



261 



continental and insular territory included between Colombia 
and Costa Rica, in accordance with the boundary treaties 
concluded by Panama with those Republics. 

The jurisdictional limitations stipulated in the public treaties 
negotiated prior to this Constitution are recognized. 

Article 4. The Republic of Panama respects the norms of 
international law. 

Article 118. The legislative functions of the National 
Assembly consist in enacting the laws necessary for the ful- 
fillment of the ends and the exercise of the functions of the State 
declared in this Constitution, and especially the following: . . . 

5th. To approve or disapprove public treaties negotiated 
by the Executive. 

8th. To declare war and empower the Executive to negotiate 
peace 

Article 144. Powers that the President of the Republic 
must exercise with the co-operation of the respective Minister, 
of the Cabinet Council, or of the permanent legislative com- 
mittee, as the case may be, are: . . . 

8th. To direct foreign relations; to accredit and receive 
diplomatic agents and consuls as well as to negotiate public 
treaties and conventions, which will be submitted to the con- 
sideration of the National Assembly. 

Article 231. No foreign Government or foreign official or 
semi-official entity or institution may acquire ownership over 
any part of the national territory. 

13. Constitution of the United States of Venezuela, 

5 July 1947 

[Venezuela, Ministry of Interior Relations, Constitucion Nacional (1947).] 
Translation] 

Preliminary Declaration. — The Venezuelan Nation proclaims 
as the basic reason of its existence the spiritual, political, and 
economic liberty of man, based on human dignity, social 
justice, and the equitable participation of all the people in the 
enjoyment of the national wealth. 

From that fundamental reason the Nation derives its func- 
tions of defense, of law, and of culture, for the achievement of 
its essential aims, consisting chiefly of: . . . 

the affirmation of its own nationality, in sustained harmony 
with paternal cooperation in the concert of nations for the 



262 

purposes of peace and progress, and with mutual respect of 
sovereignty; 

the support of democracy as the only and irrevocable system 
for governing its internal relations, and peaceful collaboration 
for the purpose of promoting that system in the government 
and relations of all peoples of the earth. 

The Venezuelan Nation repudiates war, conquest, and the 
abuse of economic power as instruments of international policy; 
it reaffirms its desire to settle all conflicts and controversies with 
other states by pacific means established in pacts and treaties 
to which it is a party; it endorses the principle of self-determina- 
tion of peoples, and recognizes international law as an adequate 
rule for guaranteeing the rights of man and of nations in the 
terms and for the purposes of the present Declaration. 

Article 20. . . . Foreigners are obliged to respect legal 
precepts on the same terms as are demanded of Venezuelans, 
while they reside in the territory of the Republic. 

Article 21. Without prejudice to the dispositions in inter- 
national agreements, foreigners have in Venezuela the duties 
and rights accorded to them by this Constitution and the laws; 
but neither the former not the latter can be greater than the 
duties and rights of Venezuelans. 

The laws may establish restrictions with respect to the 
exercise of the rights belonging to all foreigners or to a deter- 
mined class of them, when serious reasons of interior or exterior 
security or reasons of a sanitary nature so demand. 

Confiscation can only be imposed on foreigners, and only in 
case of conflict with their country. 

Article 33. The Nation recognizes asylum for political 
reasons, with only the limitations established by law, the 
principles of international law, and public treaties. 

Article 104. The Nation will cooperate in the international 
community for the realization of the ends of common security 
and defense, in conformity with the provisions of this Constitu- 
tion and of international pacts duly approved and ratified. 

Article 105. Treaties, conventions, and agreements con- 
cluded by the Executive Power must be approved by the 
National Congress in order to have validity, except where they 
deal with executing or perfecting pre-existing obligations of the 
Republic, with applying principles expressly recognized by it, 
with the execution of ordinary acts of international relations, 
or with the exercise of powers expressly attributed by law to 
th Executive Power. 



263 

Nonetheless, the Permanent Committee of the National 
Congress may authorize the provisional execution of interna- 
tional treaties and agreements whose urgency so requires; such 
treaties and agreements will in every case be submitted for the 
later approval or disapproval of the Legislative Chambers. 

In every case the National Executive will give an account of 
the treaties, conventions and agreements concluded by it, with 
a precise indication of their character and contents, to the 
Legislative Chambers at their next sessions, whether or not 
they are subject to the approval of the Chambers. 

Article 106. In the international engagements contracted 
by the Republic there shall be inserted a clause whereby the 
parties oblige themselves to decide by the pacific means recog- 
nized in international law or previously agreed on by them, if 
such be the case, controversies which may arise between such 
parties with respect to the interpretation or execution of the 
treaty, whenever it is judged necessary considering the nature 
of such treaty or whenever the procedure which must be 
followed for its conclusion permits. 

Article 107. No contract of national, state, or municipal 
public interest can be concluded with foreign governments, nor 
transferred to them in whole or in part. Nor can such contracts 
be concluded with companies which are not domiciled in 
Venezuela, nor can contracts made with third persons be 
transferred to them. 

To conclude such contracts with foreign official or semi- 
official entities with autonomous juridical personality, or to 
transfer them to such entities in whole or in part, in each case 
the authorization is required of the Legislative Chambers, or 
of the Permanent Committee if they are urgent and the Cham- 
bers are in recess. 

Article 108. In the contracts referred to by the previous 
article, if it is in accord with their nature, a clause shall be 
considered to be incorporated even where it is not express 
by which it is established that the doubts and controversies 
which may arise concerning said contracts and which are not 
amicably solved by the contracting parties shall be decided 
by the competent tribunals of Venezuela, in conformity with 
its laws, and shall not for any reason be able to give rise to 
foreign claims. 

Article 138. The competence of the national power shall 
extend to: 



264 



1 . The international acts of the United States of Venezuela 
as a sovereign nation. 

Article 162. The Legislative Chambers as co-legislative 
bodies shall have the following attributions: 

1. To approve or disapprove international treaties, conven- 
tions, or agreements which are subject to this requirement in 
conformity with Article 105 of this Constitution; . . . 

Article 198. The attributions and duties of the President 
of the Republic are: . . . 

2. To represent the Nation in its relations with the other 
nations, to name the diplomatic and consular agents of the 
Republic, and to receive the diplomatic representatives of other 
States; 

3. To direct, through the appropriate Minister, the foreign 
relations of the Republic and diplomatic negotiations, and to 
conclude through plenipotentiaries designated by him in the 
Council of Ministers treaties, conventions or agreements with 
other nations. 

4. To adhere, with the approval of the Permanent Com- 
mittee of the Congress and of the Council of Ministers, to 
multilateral treaties which are of interest to the Republic and 
to sign, in the name of Venezuela, through plenipotentiaries 
designated by him, those in whose preliminary discussions 
Venezuela has participated; 

5. To submit to the approval of the Legislative Chambers 
the treaties, conventions, and agreements for which such 
approval is required, to ratify them, to exchange or deposit 
ratifications, and to put the treaties, conventions, and agree- 
ments into execution when there is opportunity; 

7. To adopt the necessary measures for the defense of the 
Republic, the integrity of its territory and its sovereignty in 
case of international emergency, and to give execution to the 
obligations resulting from pacts for the common security and 
defense to which the Republic is a party, when he shall be 
required to do so. In these cases he will urgently request the 
convocation of the Congress in extraordinary sessions, if it is 
not meeting, and will give it an account of all that has been 
done and will propose the measures he deems necessary; 

8. To prohibit the entrance of foreigners into the national 
territory or to expel them in the cases provided for by this 
Constitution or by the laws of the Republic or permitted by 
international law; . . . 

■fr U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1950—855422